Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

The explanatory text is all about the low-lying land. The Council suggest that this text needs to reflect the whole objective and refer to 'landscape character'. Ideally this should be first, as it is the landscape character (geology, soils etc.) that underpins the important natural environment and designated sites being referenced.

The Council suggests that this objective should refer to 'landscape character', as understanding landscape character is at the heart of achieving the ‘integration’ of new development referred to.

These smaller villages [specifically Plaistow Ifold and Kirdford] should be reclassified as “Rest of Plan Area: Includes the countryside and other small villages and hamlets which have poor access to facilities.”

The drafting of this section of the Plan does not match the landscape character evidence in relation to settlement character. The ambition to support landscape quality in the North of the Plan Area is supported by the Council, but it is undermined by identifying all the settlements as ‘Service Villages’. Plaistow, Ifold and Kirdford in particular are all small villages in comparison with Loxwood and Wisborough Green, which are larger scale settlements and different in character terms. By labelling them all as ‘Service Villages’ will risk these smaller villages becoming treated as larger ‘Service Villages’ in time, which will risk them losing their character and settlement hierarchy within this area. These smaller villages should be reclassified as “Rest of Plan Area: Includes the countryside and other small villages and hamlets which have poor access to facilities.”

The Plan identifies that there are few large settlements North of the Plan Area. To ensure this distinctive area of the District is correctly conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced in keeping with the aspirations set out in Chapter 2: Vision and Strategic Objectives, North of the Plan Area, paragraphs 2.49 – 2.51 it is important that the various settlements within the area are correctly identified. Compared to Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett* Wisborough Green is an isolated exceptionally rural village; however, when you compare Wisborough Green to Plaistow, Ifold or Kirdford, Wisborough Green appears more akin to a true ‘Service Village’.

*proximity to A27, public transport, Chichester city and other higher order settlement hubs, services and facilities

Therefore, it is incorrect to list Plaistow, Ifold, Kirdford, Wisborough Green and Loxwood in the same ‘Service Village’ category as Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett etc as this does not correctly recognise the true scale of the settlements in the North of the Plan Area, which are materially different from the rest of the District.
Settlements are 'small and dispersed’ with poor connectivity either to each other or to other settlement hubs. To do so, is contrary to the Plan’s aspiration to maintain landscape quality. The Plan’s policies need to correctly reflect the characteristics of each landscape. If settlements are incorrectly identified any growth will be unsustainable and will change the character of the whole landscape. The ambitions should be constrained by an area’s landscape capacity.

Chichester's landscape evidence remains the Capacity Study 2019. The results of this study should be correctly reflected within Plan policies.

Whilst the Council understands that some small-scale development is required within the North of the Plan area and supports this, it wishes to act as a critical friend to ensure that the nuances of the proposed small scale development is fully appreciated.

All housing numbers advocated for the North of the Plan Area are large-scale for the current size of the settlements in this area and will increase their population sizes, without providing any services / facilities to manage this increase. In truth, the Plan cannot / does not deliver the required services / facilities the current settlements need, irrespective of any additional growth. The Plan cannot alter the proximity of the SDNP; the areas dark skies; its rare ecology; the poor rural road networks; the proximity of key services to these northern settlements e.g., secondary schools / higher education / transport links - many of which are situated outside of the District itself; the lack of supermarkets; the lack of other services which are necessary to support a diverse population i.e., libraries, children’s centres, job centres etc and the dependence on private vehicles.

The various services / facilities required to support bigger population sizes are outside of the control of CDC and the Local Plan – medical services / school placements (primary, secondary, and higher education) / public transport services / leisure / retail. Therefore, whilst 25, 50, 75, 220 are very small housing numbers when compared to the rest of the District, if the local services upon which these additional residents will rely upon are already oversubscribed – which they are - and there is no prospect of delivering the requires support services in the area – which there is not - then any housing number above that which the current local area can reasonably accommodate is unsustainable development.

The drafting of this section of the Plan does not match the landscape character evidence in relation to settlement character. The ambition to support landscape quality in the North of the Plan Area is supported by the Council, but it is undermined by identifying all the settlements as ‘Service Villages’. Plaistow, Ifold and Kirdford in particular are all small villages in comparison with Loxwood and Wisborough Green, which are larger scale settlements and different in character terms. By labelling them all as ‘Service Villages’ will risk these smaller villages becoming treated as larger ‘Service Villages’ in time, which will risk them losing their character and settlement hierarchy within this area. These smaller villages should be reclassified as “Rest of Plan Area: Includes the countryside and other small villages and hamlets which have poor access to facilities.”

The Plan identifies that there are few large settlements North of the Plan Area. To ensure this distinctive area of the District is correctly conserved and, where appropriate, enhanced in keeping with the aspirations set out in Chapter 2: Vision and Strategic Objectives, North of the Plan Area, paragraphs 2.49 – 2.51 it is important that the various settlements within the area are correctly identified. Compared to Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett* Wisborough Green is an isolated exceptionally rural village; however, when you compare Wisborough Green to Plaistow, Ifold or Kirdford, Wisborough Green appears more akin to a true ‘Service Village’.

*proximity to A27, public transport, Chichester city and other higher order settlement hubs, services and facilities

Therefore, it is incorrect to list Plaistow, Ifold, Kirdford, Wisborough Green and Loxwood in the same ‘Service Village’ category as Fishbourne, Boxgrove, and Westhampnett etc as this does not correctly recognise the true scale of the settlements in the North of the Plan Area, which are materially different from the rest of the District.
Settlements are 'small and dispersed’ with poor connectivity either to each other or to other settlement hubs. To do so, is contrary to the Plan’s aspiration to maintain landscape quality. The Plan’s policies need to correctly reflect the characteristics of each landscape. If settlements are incorrectly identified any growth will be unsustainable and will change the character of the whole landscape. The ambitions should be constrained by an area’s landscape capacity.

Chichester's landscape evidence remains the Capacity Study 2019. The results of this study should be correctly reflected within Plan policies.

Whilst the Council understands that some small-scale development is required within the North of the Plan area and supports this, it wishes to act as a critical friend to ensure that the nuances of the proposed small scale development is fully appreciated.

All housing numbers advocated for the North of the Plan Area are large-scale for the current size of the settlements in this area and will increase their population sizes, without providing any services / facilities to manage this increase. In truth, the Plan cannot / does not deliver the required services / facilities the current settlements need, irrespective of any additional growth. The Plan cannot alter the proximity of the SDNP; the areas dark skies; its rare ecology; the poor rural road networks; the proximity of key services to these northern settlements e.g., secondary schools / higher education / transport links - many of which are situated outside of the District itself; the lack of supermarkets; the lack of other services which are necessary to support a diverse population i.e., libraries, children’s centres, job centres etc and the dependence on private vehicles.

The various services / facilities required to support bigger population sizes are outside of the control of CDC and the Local Plan – medical services / school placements (primary, secondary, and higher education) / public transport services / leisure / retail. Therefore, whilst 25, 50, 75, 220 are very small housing numbers when compared to the rest of the District, if the local services upon which these additional residents will rely upon are already oversubscribed – which they are - and there is no prospect of delivering the requires support services in the area – which there is not - then any housing number above that which the current local area can reasonably accommodate is unsustainable development.