Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

We are pleased to see a policy encouraging renewable energy generation in a manner which protects and enhances the local environment, and is resilient to climate change in accordance with paragraph 155 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

We are supportive of this policy, particularly in regard to the wildlife corridors along watercourses and links with Biodiversity Opportunity Areas. We would encourage consideration of natural flood management wherever possible to deliver multiple benefits. Further information on natural flood management can be found on the gov.uk website - https://www.gov.uk/guidance/use-nature-based-solutions-to-reduce-flooding-in-your-area.

Additional wording - “Opportunities to conserve, protect, enhance and recover biodiversity and contribute to wildlife and habitats connectivity will be undertaken, including the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations. The Local Nature Recovery Strategy will be utilised to inform opportunities for nature recovery.”

Reflecting a suitable buffer (10 metres plus) for watercourses.

We are pleased to see that our comments at the Regulation 18 consultation have been incorporated. Since that time, the Environment Act 2021 has mandated Local Nature Recovery Strategies (LNRS) which are a system of spatial strategies for nature. They are designed as tools to encourage more coordinated practical and focused action and investment in nature. The LNRS will be useful to assist with delivery of this policy. Whilst the policy wording is sufficient, it may be worth more specific wording regarding LNRS being incorporated as suggested below:

“Opportunities to conserve, protect, enhance and recover biodiversity and contribute to wildlife and habitats connectivity will be undertaken, including the preservation, restoration and recreation of priority habitats, ecological networks and the protection and recovery of priority species populations. The Local Nature Recovery Strategy will be utilised to inform opportunities for nature recovery.”

We would also encourage reflection in the accompanying text or within the policy that watercourses should have a suitable buffer provided (10 metres or more) in which no or very minimal structures are present to enhance habitats and natural river processes, assist with flood risk management and provide water quality enhancements. We have also reflected this in our comments on Policy NE15.

We support the reference in this paragraph to SuDS being a key standard feature in developments. SuDS can provide multiple benefits, including flood risk management, water quality enhancements and biodiversity enhancements. We would encourage retrofitting of SuDS into existing developed areas wherever possible as well.

We are supportive of this policy and the references to Water Neutrality and Nutrient Neutrality relating to the Sussex North Water Resource Zone and Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protected Area respectively. Proposals by developers to address these issues (such as creating wetlands or obtaining water supply from boreholes) may have requirements for environmental permits from us. Early engagement with us is encouraged to check whether such permits can feasibly be obtained for any such proposals.

A minor amendment to change the wording from ‘Regional Habitat Compensatory Programme’ to as it is now called the ‘Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme (HCRP).

We are pleased to see the support in this policy for future habitat creation, as well as the delivery of flood defences and adaptation to climate change.

The policy requires a minor amendment to change the wording from ‘Regional Habitat Compensatory Programme’ to as it is now called the ‘Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme (HCRP). This also applies to paragraph 4.69.

There are specific locations within Chichester District which offer opportunities to provide saltmarsh and coastal grazing marsh in the medium to long term. These locations include areas in Fishbourne, Chidham and Hambrook and on Thorney Island.

A minor amendment to change the wording from ‘Regional Habitat Compensatory Programme’ to as it is now called the ‘Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme (HCRP).

The paragraph requires a minor amendment to change the wording from ‘Regional Habitat Compensatory Programme’ to as it is now called the ‘Habitat Compensation and Restoration Programme (HCRP). This also applies to Policy NE11.

Consider using the Highest Astronomical Tide level rather than Mean High Water.

Clarification may be needed for the paragraph about replacement buildings.

Inclusion of a new bullet point to encourage future relocation within property boundary if impacted by coastal erosion.

The Local Authority may wish to consider using the ‘Highest Astronomical Tide’ (HAT) level rather than ‘Mean High Water’ (MHW) for the proposed minimum 25 metre setback. In the harbours, the presence of saltmarshes can push MHW quite far away from defences yet with sea level rise, i.e. even without erosion of the saltmarsh, the line can suddenly ‘jump’ right to the defence, while the HAT is in almost all cases already at the defence.

We note the 25 metre setback specified in this policy as a minimum requirement. The Local Authority may want to allow for a degree of flexibility to allow a greater setback if they wish to be more aspirational in particular locations as informed by any future coastal studies or data.

We question whether the paragraph regarding replacement buildings need clarification (i.e. the paragraph that says “Replacement buildings will be permitted unless there is evidence that the existing or demolished property has been damaged as a result of the effect of wind and waves. Replacement buildings should be set further back whenever possible”). A replacement building which is setback from its previous position is likely to be a new building, which should therefore accord with the minimum 25 metre setback. The last sentence could lead to confusion.

We suggest a further bullet point 8 to be added to says “The development considers coastal erosion impacts over its lifetime and where possible and relevant, is constructed in a way such that future relocation within the property boundary is possible to mitigate future impacts.”

Please see our comments for suggested amendment.

We are pleased to see reference to a 16 metre setback from sea defences in paragraph 4.74, albeit this is from any sea defence not just those mainatained by the Environment Agency. This allows for maintenance and emergency works. This paragraph should be amended accordingly – see suggestion below:

“The Environmental Permitting Regulations 2016 require the consent of the Environment Agency to be obtained for any works between low water mark and a line 16 metres from the landward side of any sea defences. A 16-metre strip of land is required for access for maintenance, emergency works and/or future improvement and the council will ensure the land is safeguarded from obstruction.”

We support the continued inclusion of this policy and specific references to key Plans.