Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 4887

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Regarding “Water Quality and Wastewater”, it may not be possible in all cases to
demonstrate no adverse impact on the quality of water bodies, surface water and
groundwater. As such, suggest rewording.

Do not agree with this change which would weaken protection.

Object

Representation ID: 4888

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Part 2 of Policy NE8 states:
‘Development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats (such as
ancient woodland and trees; veteran trees; protected trees, groups of trees and
woodland and hedgerows) should be refused unless there are wholly exceptional
reasons. . .’
Protected trees, groups of trees and
woodland and hedgerows are not irreplaceable habitats – reference to these
features should be removed from this sentence

Criterion 2 will be amended to reflect the definition of irreplaceable habitats in the NPPF as referred to at paragraph 180(c).

Object

Representation ID: 4889

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Point 1d refers to a worst-case scenario of developments providing BNG by purchasing credits for through the national biodiversity credit scheme. The policy wording should also allow for off-site BNG provision to be delivered on land outside of the LPA area that is controlled by applicants or other landowners, or for a solution to be delivered via a BNG broker.

Similarly to draft Policies A8 and NE4, the requirement to avoid “any adverse impact” is more onerous than the NPPF threshold for refusal of planning permission which is “significant harm”. NE5 should be amended accordingly.

Objection and proposed changes noted. i) We will consider a minor amendment to Policy NE5 that enhances its flexibility by allowing for off-site provision outside, but neighbouring, the Local Plan Area, recognising that BNG can contribute to wider nature recovery plans as well as local objectives. This will be caveated by the need to ensure land is deliverable in areas of strategic significance in accordance with future Local Nature Recovery Strategies. The proposed reference to the South Coast Plain NCA will be resisted as the wider area extends beyond this landscape e.g. to the north of the district. ii) We will consider a minor amendment to Policy NE5 to clarify our expectations in accordance with the mitigation hierarchy but to avoid suggestion of an absolute requirement regarding any adverse impact that is overly onerous and inflexible.

Object

Representation ID: 4890

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The requirement for new development adjacent to SWCs to “take opportunities available in order to extend and enhance those corridors” introduces uncertainty and
conflict with draft Policy A8 (see main report, section 4). The final paragraph to NE4 should be deleted.

The requirement in criterion 2 for development to “not have an adverse effect” is similar to Requirement 10 of draft Policy A8: “no adverse effects” is not the threshold
advocated by the NPPF (paragraph 179) which instead requires Local Plans to “promote the conservation, restoration and enhancement of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species…” Paragraph 180 establishes the correct threshold, which is “significant harm”. Criterion 2 should be amended accordingly.

Comment noted. It is not considered that the wording of the policy conflicts with Policy A8. Development proposals adjacent to wildlife corridors, such as that proposed in Policy A8, can make use of opportunities to extend and enhance corridors through careful masterplanning. It is important that development proposals do not undermine the function and integrity of the wildlife corridors.

Object

Representation ID: 4892

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The timing of delivery of transport infrastructure on the A27 will be outside of the applicant’s control. Emerging policy will require financial contributions (8.20/8.21) towards a wider package of A27 improvements which will discharge the applicant’s obligation with regard delivery of transport infrastructure on the A27 and beyond this it would not be reasonable for the development to be held back due to the Council’s failure to deliver.

It is acknowledged that some of the criteria 1-7 would be the responsibility of other parties and not of applicants and developers. A minor modification will be made to this effect.

Object

Representation ID: 4893

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

A requirement to meet in perpetuity costs of infrastructure and its maintenance is unlikely to meet policy tests.

Objection noted.

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.

Object

Representation ID: 4894

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Amend first bullet point to, “Development to include at least 680 dwellings…”

The final bullet point, related to meeting the need for gypsy and traveller pitches should cross-reference draft Policy H11 Meeting Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling
Showpeoples’ Needs, which makes specific allowance for off-site provision where this is justified.

Comment noted.
(i) Para 10.1 of the Plan makes it clear that the strategic site allocation policies include an anticipated number of dwellings to come forward on each site and that any variation to this through the development management process would need to be justified with up to date evidence, for example, through a Transport Assessment. A modification is proposed to include ‘approximately’ to reflect this flexibility.


(ii) As the Local Plan is intended to be read in the round it is not considered necessary to duplicate Policy H11 within this policy.

Object

Representation ID: 5301

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Reword point 5:

Phasing the delivery of new transport infrastructure agreed through the Transport Assessment process to align with development phases with triggers identified based on the outcomes of monitoring travel demand. It may also be necessary to proactively phase development to take into account the monitoring and effectiveness of travel plans to encourage sustainable travel behaviour.

Criterion 5 of Policy T1 reflects the reality that the phasing of new development must take account of the timescales for funding and delivering the strategic infrastructure on the A27.

Object

Representation ID: 5303

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Point 7 should remove reference to A27 improvements and be reworded to reflect potential for mitigation through active travel mode improvements. Suggested rewording as follows:

7. Delivering a coordinated package of infrastructure improvements as identified through the monitor and manage process. These will increase opportunities for
active travel mode use, reduce traffic congestion, improve safety and air quality, and improve access to Chichester city by all modes from surrounding areas.

The strategy set out in Policy T1 (and highlighted in criterion 7) requires both the delivery of strategic infrastructure improvements on the A27 Chichester Bypass as well as the smaller-scale infrastructure and sustainable travel initiatives that will be required by the monitor and manage approach.

Object

Representation ID: 5310

Received: 17/03/2023

Respondent: Obsidian Strategic AC Limited, DC Heaver and Eurequity IC Ltd

Agent: DWD Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Heritage assets

The significance of nearby listed buildings are required to be conserved and enhanced by requirement 4. The requirement to enhance the assets’ historic significance goes beyond the policy requirement in the NPPF.

Paragraph 190 states, “Plans should set out a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment…” There is no requirement to enhance significance and it is difficult to see how a development on site A8 could achieve this. Requirement 4 should be amended to remove the reference to enhancement.

Comment noted. Agree to proposed amendment.