Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5104

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd

Agent: Smith Simmons Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Plan not legally compliant as it has not been reviewed within 5 years of the last Plan adopted in July 2015. Local Plan fails to meet objectively assessed need (OAN) of 638 dpa outside national park and has not been properly evidenced in any up to date statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities with regards to the ‘duty to cooperate’. The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance (January 2023) forms part of the evidence base for the Submission Local Plan. The Local Plan excluding the national park only provides for 575 dpa against an OAN of 638 dpa. However this under provision against need has not been justified anywhere in discussions with neighbouring authorities before the Plan was submitted. No statements of common ground have been produced or agreed. The failure to meet the duty to cooperate cannot be remedied because it has already ended with the Submission Plan. The plan therefore fails the positively prepared and justified tests. It also fails to comply with national policy (NPPF paragraphs 24-27).

Object

Representation ID: 5105

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd

Agent: Smith Simmons Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The Settlement Hierarchy background paper prepared for the Regulation 18 draft Local Plan provides the justification for the hierarchy in Policy S2 of the Regulation 19 Local Plan. We agree that the hierarchy prioritising development at Chichester as the sub regional centre, followed by development at the settlement hubs, service villages and the rest of the plan area is reasonable. However, although the distribution of housing amongst the settlements in the current Regulation 19 plan has been updated compared to the last Regulation 18 plan, the background paper itself has not been updated. Nor is there any justification or explanation for the change in the quantum of strategic and non-strategic housing to the different categories of settlement in the background paper or the Local Plan itself. For instance the allocation at Chidham and Hambrook parish has been reduced from 500 to 300 dwellings. Whilst Loxwood has an increased allocation of 220 dwellings this could still be considered an under provision of development for the NE part of the district as a whole. In our view, given the capacity constraints for development in the south part of the district, the NE sub region could have played a more significant role in helping rebalance the development needs of the district with a more equal split between the north and south areas.

Object

Representation ID: 5106

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd

Agent: Smith Simmons Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The identified housing need has been informed by the 2022 Housing and Economic Development Needs Assessment (HEDNA). It explains that based on the standard methodology, since the last HEDNA in 2020, the district wide housing need has increased from 746 dpa to 763 dpa (621 dpa in the Plan Area to 638 dpa) with the balance to be found in the national park. The proposed 638 dpa for the area of the district outside the national park is the figure that will be tested at the forthcoming Examination.
We have already explained why the failure of the Council to plan for the 638 dpa in the Regulation 19 Local Plan has not been justified in connection with the duty to cooperate and no evidence has been presented in any statement of common ground with neighbouring authorities to show how development needs could be met elsewhere.
We note from policy H1 that the housing supply includes existing housing commitments from the 2015 adopted Local Plan, the Site Allocations DPD, and ‘made’ Neighbourhood Pans all without planning permission. It also includes planning permission for schemes of over 4 dwellings granted consent as of 1 January 2023.
However it is unclear how the supply from these categories of development have translated into the strategic and non-strategic allocations in policies H2 and H3.
For instance, has it informed the strategic allocations of 300 dwellings to Chidham and Hambrook in policy A12 and the 220 dwellings at Loxwood in policy A15? Have the categories of supply as commitments at each settlement been ring fenced to count against the new proposed allocation? We would welcome further lower case policy clarification to confirm that the allocations are fixed, and no further adjustments will be made to the figures.

Object

Representation ID: 5107

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd

Agent: Smith Simmons Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy H2 identifies strategic scale and policy H3, non-strategic allocations. We have explained above that the Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper was prepared for the 2018 Preferred Options Regulation 18 Local Plan but has not been updated to provide any justification for the revised housing distribution and quantum of development for the named locations and settlements in the Regulation 19 Local Plan.
We would query why the options outlined in the PINS advisory visit of 2021 have not been more thoroughly tested for increased housing provision in the north part of the district to increase the supply of housing to meet OAN. There is no updated Settlement Hierarchy background paper, and the revised housing distribution has not been justified anywhere in the evidence base for the Regulation 19 Local Plan.

Object

Representation ID: 5108

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd

Agent: Smith Simmons Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We request further clarification of the 300 dwelling allocation at Chidham and Hambrook in policy A12 to confirm the allocation is fixed as a minimum figure and will not be affected by any pending applications and appeals for the post January 2023 period.

Object

Representation ID: 5109

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd

Agent: Smith Simmons Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We request further clarification of the 220 dwelling allocation at Loxwood in policy A15 to confirm the allocation is fixed as a minimum figure and will not be affected by any pending applications and appeals for the post January 2023 period.

Object

Representation ID: 5110

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Seaward Properties Ltd

Agent: Smith Simmons Partners

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The policy objectives to ensure new development is well located and designed to avoid or minimise the need for travel and encourage the use of sustainable modes of travel as an alternative to the private car are supported. However, contributing to a multi modal shift away from the use of the private car will take traffic off the A27 and yet this hasn’t been recognised in the policy. We therefore object to the funding arrangements for A27 improvements based on the proposed per dwelling contribution. In any event it is unclear how the contributions are justified anyway when the responsibility for trunk road infrastructure rests with National Highways.
As noted in the viability assessment forming part of the local plan evidence base, the cumulative impact of the contribution alongside other policy requirements concerning water neutrality, nitrate neutrality, biodiversity net gain, solent recreation mitigation and CIL will impact on the overall viability of a development and could result in the loss of affordable housing. This is another reason why the proposed contribution in T1 is questioned and in our view, flawed.