Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5642

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Lack of reference to latest transport study conclusions in CDC Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance, and how this was accounted for in duty to cooperate discussions with adjoining LPAs; along with a lack of progress with adjoining LPAs SoCG, makes it difficult in the interim to conclude whether Council’s legal duty has been met. Would respectfully wish to reserve the right to comment further on this once such evidence is available.

The Duty to Cooperate Statement of Compliance has been updated to reflect the latest position and continuing work on agreeing Statements of Common Ground with relevant authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 5643

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst support overall objective of policy, first paragraph is insufficiently flexible to discharge the remaining criteria of policy. For example, in instances where ‘protection’ or ‘adverse impact’ cannot be avoided, but can be reduced in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy, and / or the benefits clearly outweigh the likely impact. Wording of first paragraph neither ‘justified’ nor likely to be ‘effective’ in its current form. It is assumed reading the remainder of the policy that this may be an unintended consequence. Second paragraph also duplicates provisions in remaining criteria of policy.

Objection and proposed change noted. i)We will consider a minor amendment to Policy NE5’s introductory sentence to ensure clarity in relation to adherence to the mitigation hierarchy and flexibility in terms of implementation. ii)It is considered that the inclusion of the introductory paragraph and points A-H is necessary to clarify the hierarchy of importance for habitats, sites and species considered within the policy and their deletion is therefore resisted.

Object

Representation ID: 5644

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The wording ‘exceed the normal design standards’ in first criterion of policy is somewhat ambiguous, and as a consequence is unlikely to be ‘effective’ in its application. Requirement in criterion 2 that, ‘There is no increase in either the volume or rate of surface water run-off leaving the site’ is also unlikely to be justified on all sites, particularly where ground conditions do not permit infiltration.

The Council agree that some clarification regarding what is meant by ‘normal design standard’ would be helpful and an amendment to that effect is proposed. In essence the wording wasn’t intended to refer to a particular set of design standards, rather a particular severity of flood risk event. The Council also agrees with the point made in relation to criterion 2 and has proposed an amendment to address that and ensure that the policy can be implemented in an effective manner.

Object

Representation ID: 5652

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The words ‘an absence of significant noise disturbance or annoyance’ in criterion 1 are sufficiently ambiguous to compromise effectiveness of policy. Similarly, in criterion 2 the wording ‘by reason of noise disturbance and annoyance on the surrounding area or environment,’ is sufficiently ambiguous to compromise effectiveness of policy.

In line with paragraph 185 a) of the NPPF, amendment has been made to criterion 1 to reflect the NPPF paragraph 185a, the Noise PPG and Noise Planning Statement wording regarding impacts on health and quality of life. Uses and users are not defined in criterion 2 to avoid the criterion being exclusionary.

Object

Representation ID: 5654

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

The SA asserts it would be unreasonable to test growth scenarios above LHN figure of 638dpa. However, if transport study conclusions are correct, this may not prove to be the case. As a consequence, these matters may need to be revisited through an update or addendum to the SA to ensure the SA process is found to be legally compliant, with further revisions and consultation on Policy H1 as necessary to ensure it meets the ‘positively prepared’ and ‘justified’ tests of soundness. This should be progressed prior to formal submission of Local Plan, with outcomes and actions (including any necessary revisions to the Local Plan) discussed with adjoining LPAs as part of Council’s legal Duty to Cooperate on strategic matters.

The justification for not meeting the housing needs in full is set out in the Housing Need and Transport Background Papers (May 2024). The latest Duty to Cooperate evidence is set out in the updated Statement of Compliance

Object

Representation ID: 5655

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Support re-allocation under policy A14. Confirm site remains suitable for mixed-use, no known overriding constraints to delivery. Further evidence in support can be found under 20/02893/OUT. Criterion 2 - would welcome agreement over specific type/amount of accommodation required. Would welcome confirmation that specialist needs required will be limited to C3. Criterion 3 - wording ‘transforming the existing village centre into a new local centre’ does not take into account outcome of engagement, consultation, and outline permission. Recommend cross checks undertaken prior to formal submission to ensure black line extent of site on Map 10.8 aligns with that progressing towards grant of permission.

Support noted.
(i) Suggested amendment to criterion 2 may be unduly restrictive in ruling out other forms of older persons housing. The HEDNA identifies a very broad level of need, therefore being too specific has the potential to reduce the range of provision which may come forward.
(ii) Accept amendment to criterion 3, and the extent of the plan to accord with outline planning application.
(iii) The provision of overall allotment space as approved under the outline permission provides for the relocation of allotment space. It would not seem necessary therefore to remove this from the criterion. Agree to deletion of reference to World War II airfield.

Support

Representation ID: 5656

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Support inclusion of criterion 3. In addition to evidenced local need, may be other site-specific factors that justify need to provide a different mix of housing for a particular site. This could include for example, viability considerations.

Paragraph 5.26 supports a different housing mix where appropriate with regard to the nature of the development site and the character of the area

Object

Representation ID: 5658

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

To be consistent with the approach outlined in the first paragraph of Policy H6/H8, it is suggested requirements are set out and justified in relevant site-specific allocation policies. Any specific requirements for non-allocated sites should also be clarified, with appropriate flexibility built in to ensure this can account for specific site circumstances.

As drafted, Policy H8 seeks to deliver specialist housing on all sites over 200 dwellings not just those allocated in the plan. Policy H6 has different requirements as the number of units to be delivered on individual site allocations were calculated on the latest available custom and self build register.

Object

Representation ID: 5660

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

We note the Government has published its response to the consultation on the building regulations governing accessibility - Part M . This response states that the Government will make part M4(2) the mandatory standard. Whilst this is still to be introduced, given the likelihood that the Government will make M4(2) the mandatory standard we would recommend that the Council amend its policy accordingly to ensure no unnecessary repetition of building regulations within planning policy.

Whilst the building regulations are due to be updated to include M4(2) as standard, this has not yet taken place. The policy was drafted to reflect the needs of the local population and therefore has remained as drafted to ensure delivery of M4(2) dwellings should there be a delay or change to the building regs update

Object

Representation ID: 5663

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Countryside Properties

Agent: Turley

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Part A - extent to which such materials can be applied is likely to vary on a site by site basis.
Part B - inclusion of elements listed are unlikely to be appropriate for all developments and site circumstances, particularly elements such as green and blue roofs and green walls. Policy as worded, unlikely to be effective over plan period.

The Council agrees to a certain extent that the practicalities of sourcing materials means that some flexibility is required but wish to avoid weakening the policy excessively. Therefore, a compromise is proposed which introduces a degree of flexibility but without defeating the goal of the policy. In relation to the second point, the Council agrees that the suitability of adaptation measures will vary according to the characteristics of particular developments and sites. However, there is already considered to be sufficient flexibility within the policy to address this point (the policy doesn’t require that all of the list is utilised). Moreover, the proposed amendment by the respondent doesn’t seem to fundamentally change the policy requirement