Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 3994

Received: 10/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

No Statement of Common Ground has been agreed with neighbouring authorities and key statutory undertakers as required. e.g. National Highways. It is not sufficient to say this will be done in the future as many the large housing proposals require key infrastructure to be agreed in advance of development.

The Statement of Compliance published at the time of the Regulation 19 consultation set out the key cross boundary transport issues, the engagement undertaken by the Council with relevant bodies on these issues and the outcomes of that at that stage. The latest position is set out in the updated Statement of Compliance (April 2024) and Statements of Common Ground.

The IDP, which supports the Local Plan, also sets out the infrastructure requirements for individual site allocations.

Object

Representation ID: 3996

Received: 10/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

The last public consultation stage concluded in February 2019, as set out in the latest Statement of Community Involvement published in Nov. 2018. Many matters have changed since then, especially Government policy.

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, including the relocation of settled areas (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).

Object

Representation ID: 3999

Received: 10/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This policy does not pass the test of soundness as it does not PHASE the release of the uncommitted housing sites. Despite 62% of the overall allocation already being built or committed, equating to 10 years land supply, the remaining 3300 are not constrained. As a consequence such sites could be granted Permission without the necessary infrastructure being in place.

The council needs to achieve a 5 year supply of housing upon adoption, and to maintain the required level of supply across the plan period, particularly in the first 10 years. The housing provided within the Local Plan will achieve this, as set out in the housing trajectory which forms part of the Local Plan. This is explained in more detail in the Housing Supply Background Paper.

Policy I1 requires infrastructure and its timing to be secured by way of condition or legal requirement. It is those conditions or legal agreements that will set out the detailed phasing and housing triggers.

It would not be practical to prevent all development from being provided until all accompanying infrastructure is completed as that would not be economically viable

Object

Representation ID: 4000

Received: 10/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Allocations should only be released when Transport and Wastewater infrastructure is at least committed.

Policy I1 requires infrastructure and its timing to be secured by way of condition or legal requirement. It is those conditions or legal agreements that will set out the detailed phasing and housing triggers.
It would not be practical to prevent all development from being provided until all accompanying infrastructure is completed as that would not be economically viable.
The proposed modifications to Policy T1 Transport Infrastructure set out the council’s approach to securing transport mitigation to support the planned growth.

Object

Representation ID: 4001

Received: 10/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

This policy does not safeguard existing and proposed routes for walking and cycling and does not provide a mechanism to fund such improvements.

Criterion 1 provides for delivery and contribution towards cycle and walking route improvements whilst Policy I1 Infrastructure Provision refers to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which identifies infrastructure requirements and costings including for the transport elements: walking and cycling. The policy sets out that walking and cycling will be prioritised in development proposals. Criterion 1 requires the safeguarding of current and planned cycle and walking routes. Criterion 3 provides for cycle parking and storage facilities at publicly accessible locations. Policy T2 provides for measures that decrease traffic speed and flows

Object

Representation ID: 4002

Received: 10/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

Basically there is a lack of priority in the plan to sustainable and active travel modes. All funding seems to be based on highway improvements to the A27 to accomodate the anticipated increase in car trips with no mitigation and no certainty of infrastucture improvements occuring in line with land release.

Policy T1 sets out a strategy based on an expectation that all new development will support and embody the four objectives set out in the policy text. These focus on reducing the need to travel by car, improving access to sustainable modes of travel, managing travel demand and mitigating the impacts of car use.

Object

Representation ID: 4014

Received: 12/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

While the objective says all the right things the policies which follow in in draft Plan Policies will not achieve the stated objective..

Policy I1 requires infrastructure and its timing to be secured by way of condition or legal requirement. It is those conditions or legal agreements that will set out the detailed phasing and housing triggers.

It would not be practical to prevent all development from being provided until all accompanying infrastructure is completed as that would not be economically viable.

S106 has to meet the requirements set out in Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) meaning that its use is limited to addressing the impacts of its development. CIL is to be used to address the cumulative impacts of new development, and cannot be used to address underlying infrastructure deficits unless these are also required to support the new development.

The intention is that infrastructure providers take responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure it provides is maintained into the future. It is up to the developer to make such arrangements to ensure this happens. This often happens by the developer after the first year or so setting up a management company, whereby the residents pay a management fee to maintain the up-keep of communal facilities.

As much information as the Council has at present is included within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which accompanies this Local Plan.

Critical infrastructure would have to be delivered in advance, but all other infrastructure would be delivered in tandem with development, particularly that infrastructure to be delivered through S106 linked to triggers in the S106 agreement.

Object

Representation ID: 4015

Received: 12/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Point 6 in this policy will not achieve the change required to increase the use of sustainable and active travel modes.

See representations for Policy T3 - 4001.

Transport infrastructure is also covered within the transport policies T1 to T3 whilst funding is covered within the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) and Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) as referred to in policy I1 Infrastructure Provision. As pointed out at paragraph 1.12, the plan should be read as a ‘whole’ and policies will not be applied in isolation

Object

Representation ID: 4016

Received: 12/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

This policy will be ineffectual because it does not REQUIRE the necessary infrastructure to be phased, committed and provided in advance of the newly proposed land release for housing. There is no agreed Statement of Common Ground, especially with National Highways and Southern Water.

(i) Policy I1 requires infrastructure and its timing to be secured by way of condition or legal requirement. It is those conditions or legal agreements that will set out the detailed phasing and housing triggers.

It would not be desirable to prevent all development from being provided until all accompanying infrastructure is completed as that would not be economically viable.

(ii) A Statement of Common Ground is being sought with National Highways and an updated Statement (April 2024) has been agreed with Southern Water and the Environment Agency.

Object

Representation ID: 4106

Received: 10/03/2023

Respondent: Chichester and District Cycle Forum

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? No

No Statement of Common Ground has been agreed with neighbouring authorities and key statutory undertakers as required. e.g. National Highways. It is not sufficient to say this will be done in the future as many the large housing proposals require key infrastructure to be agreed in advance of development.

The Council is actively engaging with neighbouring local authorities and key delivery partners on an on-going basis.
Statements of Common Ground with Chichester’s neighbouring authorities and with the highway authorities and other key stakeholders are being prepared.