Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Thank you for consulting the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) on the above document. We have received the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039: Proposed Submission (Regulation 19) (“the Local Plan”) document and would like to provide the following comments of the ‘soundness’ of the Local Plan.

The Chichester District area lies within the Eastern Solent and Arun Valley, a Focus Area of work for the RSPB. This is one of our highest priority places in the UK for the promotion of conservation at a landscape-scale, adopting the principles advocated by the Lawton report Making Space for Nature (2010) , which recommended (in simple terms) more, bigger, better and more joined up protected areas.

A substantial part of the Council’s area boundary is subject to a wide range of statutory nature conservation designations. This includes (but not limited to) the Arun Valley Special Protection Area (SPA), Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA, Pagham Harbour SPA, Medmerry Compensatory Habitat, and Solent and Dorset Coast SPA; Arun Valley Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and Solent Maritime SAC; and a number of Sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSIs). The RSPB regards the protection and enhancement of the SPAs, SACs, and their associated and surrounding SSSIs as being among the highest priorities for our work nationally.

The RSPB is pleased to see and supports the overall principles of Strategic Wildlife Corridors (SWCs) within Chichester Local Plan and the SWCs Background Paper. The principles of allowing ‘the movement of species between areas of habitat by linking wildlife sites and reducing the risk of small, isolated populations becoming unsustainable and dying out’ (para 4.14, p.49) align with the Lawton principles of ‘More, Bigger, Better, and Joined Up’ that underpin conservation practice and nature recovery in the UK. The overall policy to create SWCs within Chichester District Council’s (CDC’s) Draft Local Plan is consistent with national policy, specifically para 179(a), where plans should:

‘Identify, map and safeguard components of local wildlife-rich habitats and wider ecological networks, including the hierarchy of international, national and locally designated sites of importance for biodiversity; wildlife corridors and stepping stones that connect them; and areas identified by national and local partnerships for habitat management, enhancement, restoration or creation’

However, the RSPB is concerned by the lack of information and consultation process where material changes have been made to the boundaries of the SWCs. The last opportunity for consultation upon proposals for the SWCs was between July and September 2021; without additional opportunity to comment, changes were made to the Pagham to Westhampnett SWC which in the current CDC Proposed Submission Local Plan 2021 to 2049 Policies Map have removed a western section of the woodland and scrub area to the west of Drayton Lane. This former section of SWC has since been replaced with the proposed Strategic Allocations and Policy A8, and a section of Policy A7.

It is the RSPB’s understanding that the 2021 consultation on SWCs outlined a proposed (later approved) movement of the Pagham to Westhampnett SWC to the west, through the Drayton Pits area to the west of Drayton Lane, in order to include important areas for barbastelle bats (Barbastella barbastellus) identified by survey efforts commissioned by CDC. With a lack of justification for these changes, the RSPB does not consider Policy NE4 to be ‘sound’.

The RSPB is also unclear regarding the wording around development proposals being granted permission within SWCs where it can be demonstrated that ‘there are no sequentially preferable sites available outside the wildlife corridor’. It is unclear what the definition of a sequentially preferable site is; the RSPB considers it necessary for this requirement to be clarified before it is able to provide comment on its ‘soundness’.

Overall, the RSPB supports Policy NE4 and the concept of Strategic Wildlife Corridors but does not support the changes made to SWCs without consultation. The RSPB does not consider Policy NE4 to be ‘sound’ due to a lack of justification and evidence to inform modifications in the policy (NE4) and no form of consultation to provide opportunity to comment upon these changes. The RSPB seeks the reinstatement of the former boundary of the proposed Pagham to Westhamptnett SWC as detailed at the last opportunity for consultation (July to September 2021).

The RSPB supports Policy NE5 in general regarding the clearly outlined list of sites requiring conservation, protection, enhancement, and restoration of biodiversity in the district.

However, the RSPB would like to see more ambitious targets for nature recovery through Biodiversity Net Gain. Advice to Defra from members of the Natural Capital Committee suggests that a level of net gain at or above 10% is necessary to give reasonable confidence in halting biodiversity losses. Therefore, 10% sits as an absolute minimum level of net gain for Defra to confidently expect to deliver genuine net gain, or at least no net loss, of biodiversity and thereby meet its policy objectives . Defra’s Biodiversity Net Gain Consultation Impact Assessment also highlights examples of an increase in the required percentage of net gain: ‘The Planning authority for Lichfield District requires a net gain of 20% on new development, and experience to date suggests that developers are able to meet this requirement and often achieve much greater levels of biodiversity net gain.’ The RSPB would therefore like to see the implementation of policy around Biodiversity Net Gain with a suggested minimum of 20% within Chichester district and around the county of Sussex, in order to gain a greater level of certainty for genuine net gain as a result of Biodiversity Net Gain policy and to see tangible net gain benefits for key priority species and habitats in the Borough.

Kent Nature Partnership have also explored the option of promoting a 20% BNG target for the county with a Viability Assessment commissioned by Kent County Council. Results of the assessment show that a shift from 10% to 15% or 20% BNG as a requirement will not materially affect viability in the majority of instances when delivered onsite or offsite. The biggest cost in most cases is to get to a mandatory, minimum 10% BNG. The increase to 15% or 20% BNG in most cases costs much less and is generally negligible. Because the BNG costs are low when compared to other policy costs, in no cases are they likely to be what renders development unviable.

Examples of its application can also be found in other counties in the South East, such as Surrey Nature Partnership. Further information on the recommendation for 20% Biodiversity Net Gain in Surrey’s Local Authorities can be found on the Surrey Nature Partnership website . In addition, various Local Planning Authorities are currently pursuing a 20% BNG requirement in Local Plans, such as Guildford and Mole Valley in Surrey, and Worthing in Sussex.

Links to reports mentioned above can be found below:
Defra (2018) Biodiversity Net Gain Consultation Impact Assessment. Page 19. https://consult.defra.gov.uk/land-use/net-gain/supporting_documents/181121%20%20Biodiversity%20Net%20Gain%20Consultation%20IA%20FINAL%20for%20publication.pdf
SQW (2022) Viability Assessment of Biodiversity Net Gain in Kent. https://kentnature.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Viability-Assessment-of-Biodiversity-Net-Gain-in-Kent-June-2022.pdf
Surrey Nature Partnership (2020) Recommendation for adoption of 20% minimum biodiversity net gain across Surrey’s planning sector: a Surrey Nature Partnership Position Statement. https://surreynaturepartnership.files.wordpress.com/2020/11/recommendation-for-20-bng-in-surrey_snp-november2020_final.pdf

The RSPB is supportive of measures in place to address the increase in nutrient inputs to Chichester and Langstone Harbours Special Protection Area (SPA)/Ramsar and Chichester Harbour SSSI. The RSPB agrees that while nitrogen originating from new development is not the only source, it is critical to ensure that new potential sources of nitrogen inputs do not further increase the nitrogen loads in Chichester Harbour. Securement of a nutrient neutrality scheme should be completed alongside additional catchment management measures and water quality improvement schemes to restore favourable condition in these ecosystems to enable the designated species to thrive in healthy waters.

Although supportive of the overall measures in place to address nutrient neutrality, the RSPB considers Policy NE19 needs to include further information regarding the current state of play for nutrient mitigation schemes in the district. The RSPB considers that strategic mitigation plans should be adopted in each catchment to model the optimum mix of catchment and nature-based solutions (CNBS), engineered and hybrid solutions. Although mitigation plans should be developed and delivered by a catchment operator (likely a water company), these mitigation plans should work closely with Local Authorities and strategic planning for districts in order to address nutrient neutrality holistically across the district and wider catchment areas.

Further, in addition to mitigation plans and information regarding any upcoming nutrient mitigation schemes available in the district, guidance should be included in Policy NE19 to provide more detail to aid development in implementing adequate mitigation measures to address nutrient neutrality when proposed to be fulfilled by their own means.

Without the above additional information regarding nutrient neutrality within the Local Plan document, the RSPB does not consider it possible to conclude that Policy NE19 is ‘sound’ as, in its current form, the policy does not show effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic matters surrounding nutrient neutrality.