Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 5145

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Whilst the Council have set out their activities with regard to the duty to co-operate within the compliance statement this document also notes that a none of the required Statements of Common Ground have been agreed, with many are still being drafted. Given that paragraph 26 of the NPPF expects these to be in place throughout the plan making process it is concerning that these are not available for this consultation providing clarity between Chichester District Council (CDC) and relevant parties as to the key issues and the co-operation that has taken place to address these issues.

What is disappointing is that whilst the West Sussex authorities have established mechanism for joint working through the West Sussex and Greater Brighton Planning Board no progress has been made in actually addressing the unmet needs of this area. The Local Strategic Statement (LSS) includes an objective of meeting housing needs for a growing population, yet little has been achieved with the Council suggesting that these matters will be considered in next LSS for 2030 to 2050. The HBF recognises that the area is constrained by the national park and its coastal location but seemingly nothing has been achieved in seeking to move forward. As such we would question whether the mechanisms established in this area have maximised the effectiveness of the preparation of this local plan in addressing the issue of unmet housing needs. The expectation is that cross boundary issues are not pushed forward to future plans or plan reviews, yet this is clearly what is being done in the West Sussex and Greater Brighton area.

The Council have sought to address unmet needs during the preparation of this Local Plan and have engaged with both neighbouring authorities and those in the wider region but, as set out in the updated Statement of Compliance (April 2024), no authority has confirmed that it is in a position to accommodate any of the Plan Area’s unmet need.

It is acknowledged that preparation of LSS3 has not advanced as quickly as the Council and others would have wished. However, in the absence of progress on the LSS3 update the Council is, as referenced above, preparing statements of common ground with individual authorities.

Object

Representation ID: 5146

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy is unsound as not consistent with transition requirements being proposed. The Government’s response to the consultation on the regulations for and implementation of BNG outlines that implementation of BNG on small sites will be extended to April 2024.

Objection and proposed change noted. The anticipated timescale for adoption of the Proposed Local Plan is such that reference to the small sites extension period (until April 2024) is considered not to be necessary as it will have concluded prior to Plan’s adoption.

Object

Representation ID: 5147

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy is unsound as it is not justified or consistent with national policy.

It would appear from the Council’s evidence that there may be highway capacity to meet housing needs in full. Without further evidence to support the position put forward in policy H1 the Council will need to allocate additional sites to ensure that housing needs are met in full, and the plan is sound. The Council will also need to review their approach to sites in the AONB to ensure that proper consideration is given to these sites and provide evidence as to whether or not they will ensure at least 10% of all homes will come forward on small sites.

i) The justification for not meeting the housing needs in full is set out in the Housing Need and Transport Background Papers.
ii) The PPG states that ‘plan-making bodies should consider constraints when assessing the suitability, availability and achievability of sites and broad locations. For example, assessments should reflect the policies in footnote 7 of the NPPF, which sets out the areas where the Framework would provide strong reasons for restricting the overall scale, type or distribution of development in the plan area’. The policies referred to include AONB.
iii) The evidence setting out how the 10% of homes on sites of under 1ha likely to be met is set out in the Housing Supply Background Paper.

Object

Representation ID: 5148

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Object on grounds that: Council has not presented evidence on how HEDNA identified need will be met from windfall development; Council should examine whether there are opportunities to meet demand for self-build plots through the disposal of its own sites or by working with landowners to bring forward specific sites that will be able to provide plots; Council to recognise within policy that it is not always feasible for large sites deliver self-build plots - development of single plots by individuals operating on sites poses both practical and health & safety concerns, plots could be left empty or unfinished detrimental to other homeowners on site; whilst some sites may be able to locate self-build plots to reduce risks, on others it will not be possible.

The Council has considered the amount of windfall provision. The Council disagrees with the interpretation of national guidance set out. The PPG specifically suggests provision as part of allocated sites. Windfall cannot be relied upon to meet all self/custom build needs.
In terms of the feasibility of providing self/custom build on allocations, this requirement is becoming increasingly common, and there is no reason why allocation sites cannot make this provision, especially if suitable construction management conditions and phasing are employed.
In terms of the potential for plots to be left empty or unfinished, such an argument would prevent self-build plots ever being provided.

Object

Representation ID: 5149

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy is unsound as it is not effective. Only through site allocations can the Council be certain the needs of older people be met. Important that policy provides: effective mechanism through which decisions on accommodation can be made on basis of need for and supply of such development; sets out how many specialist homes for older people are required in Chichester; commitment is made to monitoring supply against level of need across plan period; presumption in favour of development be applied if supply of land for such development falls below identified annual needs. Needs to be clear as to what is required and how a decision maker should react to ensure those needs are met. By including level of need in policy or supporting text, greater weight will be given to this in decision making, leading to the more positive approach that is required to meet housing the needs of older people.

It is clearly important to recognise and respond to the increasing need for older persons housing. The council is proposing provision as part of the proposed site allocations in order to increase the certainty of delivery.

Object

Representation ID: 5150

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy should be amended to reflect changes to Building Regulations

19. Last year the Government 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: 5151

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Part A requires proposals apply sound suitable design including the use of materials that reduce embodied carbon and make use of re-used or recycled materials. The HBF recognises the importance of reducing the embodied carbon in new homes but the extent to which such materials can be used will vary from development to development. As such we would suggest that the policy is amended to read “… including, where possible, the use of materials …”

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, this would entail including the words “wherever possible”, instead of “where possible

Object

Representation ID: 5152

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Policy is unsound as it has not been justified.

21. This policy will require all new residential development to meet the nationally described space standards. As the Council will be aware in order to adopt these standards the Council must show that there is a need for such homes within the District, but we could not find the evidence referred to in paragraph 11.105 of the Local Plan. If the Council cannot provide sufficient evidence to support the adoption of these standards, then this policy should be deleted.

Objection and proposed change noted. Our Residential Space Standards Evidence Study provides evidence to justify adoption of the NDSS within the Plan Area and will be submitted as part of the examination documents. Deletion of the policy is therefore not required. We will consider a modification to the policy to ensure clarity in interpretation and implementation of this requirement, however.

Object

Representation ID: 5153

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Lack of clarity within supporting text and policy with regard to what is required in terms of indoor sports facilities. Table 6.4 does not provide any reference to development thresholds nor hectares per 1,000 population. The requirements appear to be general standards for all communities rather than relating to specific development. Unclear to a decision maker or applicant as to what is required in terms of built sport and recreation facilities. Provision of on-site built sport and recreation facilities will only be relevant in very few circumstances with improvements in provision largely being provided by the Council using the Community Infrastructure Levy or other financial contributions.

Objection noted.

It is agreed to add to Table 6.1 a threshold requirement for the provision of on-site community and sports halls and to add a table note to clarify that such provision will depend on local circumstance.

Following an update to the Build Facilities and Leisure Needs Assessment (2024) it is proposed to remove from Table 6.4 the quantity standards per 1,000 population for specific indoor facilities. Instead reference will be made to the Needs Assessment to determine, based on local circumstances, the need for new or enhanced indoor facilities.

Object

Representation ID: 5154

Received: 16/03/2023

Respondent: Home Builders Federation

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Part (iii) of the policy is unsound as it is inconsistent with national policy and is unjustified.

The policy requires all residential development to ensure new development benefits from gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure at first occupation. However, the delivery of super-fast broadband connections is often not in the gift of the developer. The HBF agrees that such infrastructure is important, however, its provision is not essential and should not be considered a barrier to the occupation of new homes as indicated in this policy. Whilst the HBF supports the Council’s desire for such infrastructure it is their responsibility to work with the infrastructure provider to ensure its delivery and enable developments to be connected. Given that the type of connection required of development is also set out in Part R of the Building Regulations we consider it unnecessary to set this out in local plan policy. Paragraph relating to Fibre to the Premises should therefore be deleted.

The NPPF says:

10. Supporting high quality communications infrastructure
Paragraph 114:
Advanced, high quality and reliable communications infrastructure is essential for economic growth and social well-being. Planning policies and decisions should support the expansion of electronic communications networks, including next generation mobile technology (such as 5G) and full fibre broadband connections. Policies should set out how high quality digital infrastructure, providing access to services from a range of providers, is expected to be delivered and upgraded over time; and should prioritise full fibre connections to existing and new developments (as these connections will, in almost all cases, provide the optimum solution).

The policy at vi is in accordance with the building regulations Section 1 RA1

Approved Document R Volume 1: Physical infrastructure and network connection for new dwellings (publishing.service.gov.uk)

The requirement for a functioning connection to a gigabit-capable public electronic communications network is set out in the Building Regulations 2010 (amended 2022) in section 1 requirement RA2 (at the same link above).