Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Search representations
Results for Gleeson Land search
New searchObject
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Policy S1 Spatial Development Strategy
Representation ID: 4896
Received: 17/03/2023
Respondent: Gleeson Land
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
We support the inclusion of Hambrook and Nutbourne as a service village within the district's settlement hierarchy. However, we question the need for the inclusion of the wording ‘small-scale’ when referring to housing developments consistent with the indicative housing numbers set out in Policy H3. No definition is provided over what does, or does not constitute ‘small-scale’. There is a risk that small-scale could be inferred as excluding ‘major development’ as defined within the NPPF glossary. To avoid any confusion, we therefore consider the inclusion of ‘small-scale’ wording is superfluous, and should be deleted.
Consider the inclusion of ‘small-scale’ wording is superfluous, and should be deleted.
We support the inclusion of Hambrook and Nutbourne as a service village within the district's settlement hierarchy. However, we question the need for the inclusion of the wording ‘small-scale’ when referring to housing developments consistent with the indicative housing numbers set out in Policy H3. No definition is provided over what does, or does not constitute ‘small-scale’. There is a risk that small-scale could be inferred as excluding ‘major development’ as defined within the NPPF glossary. To avoid any confusion, we therefore consider the inclusion of ‘small-scale’ wording is superfluous, and should be deleted.
It is considered that as drafted the wording ensures consistency with Policy H3. ‘Small scale’ need not necessarily exclude major development provided it was consistent with the size and character of the settlement and local area.
Support
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Policy S2 Settlement Hierarchy
Representation ID: 4898
Received: 17/03/2023
Respondent: Gleeson Land
We support the inclusion of Hambrook and Nutbourne as a service village within the district's settlement hierarchy. Indeed, the Council’s Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper confirms Hambrook and Nutbourne has a broad range of key local facilities and services as well as local employment opportunities. The village also has a railway station with frequent services to Chichester and Portsmouth, as well as bus services to Chichester and Petersfield, collectively providing a wider range of facilities, services and employment opportunities.
We support the inclusion of Hambrook and Nutbourne as a service village within the district's settlement hierarchy. Indeed, the Council’s Settlement Hierarchy Background Paper confirms Hambrook and Nutbourne has a broad range of key local facilities and services as well as local employment opportunities. The village also has a railway station with frequent services to Chichester and Portsmouth, as well as bus services to Chichester and Petersfield, collectively providing a wider range of facilities, services and employment opportunities.
Noted.
Object
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Policy NE4 Strategic Wildlife Corridors
Representation ID: 4899
Received: 17/03/2023
Respondent: Gleeson Land
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The wording as drafted fails the NPPF soundness tests, on the basis that: (a) Ecology-led masterplannning can ensure development is accommodated within the SWCs while fully maintaining the functional elements of the corridors; (2) The policy as drafted is also wholly inconsistent within NPPF paragraph 180, it that it only provides for development avoidance measures within the SWCs; and (3) The ‘integrity’ test element of the policy relates to undertaking Appropriate Assessments. The protection afforded within the policy wording must be proportionate to the locally important status of the designation.
Policy NE4 should be amended to reflect the objectives and role of the Strategic Wildlife Corridor:
Development will only be permitted where it would not lead to a significant adverse effect upon the ecological value, function and connectivity of the strategic wildlife corridors.
Development proposals within strategic wildlife corridors will only be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
1. The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the function of the wildlife corridor and protects and enhances its features and habitats.
2. The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.
Development proposals outside, but in close proximity to the strategic wildlife corridor will be acceptable where it can be demonstrated that:
a) The development will not have a significant adverse impact on the integrity and function of the wildlife corridor; and
b) The proposal will not undermine the connectivity and ecological value of the corridor.
All proposals for new development (with the exception of householder applications) within or in close proximity to wildlife corridors should take opportunities available in order to extend or enhance those corridors.
The wording as drafted fails the NPPF soundness tests, on the basis that: (a) Ecology-led masterplannning can ensure development is accommodated within the SWCs while fully maintaining the functional elements of the corridors; (2) The policy as drafted is also wholly inconsistent within NPPF paragraph 180, it that it only provides for development avoidance measures within the SWCs; and (3) The ‘integrity’ test element of the policy relates to undertaking Appropriate Assessments. The protection afforded within the policy wording must be proportionate to the locally important status of the designation.
Comment noted. Careful masterplanning exercises are important for development proposals within close proximity to, adjacent to, or within corridors. This does not preclude the ability of the Council to decide whether to grant permission for a proposal or not.
The function of the corridor relies on it being contiguous and providing a continuous route of habitat. Proposals which would impact upon the integrity of the corridor such that it would result in breaks or gaps within the corridor would not be acceptable.
The last sentence of paragraph 4.18 will be updated to reflect the removal of the sequential test from the policy.
Object
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Policy H1 Meeting Housing Needs
Representation ID: 4903
Received: 17/03/2023
Respondent: Gleeson Land
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Plan should meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet needs from SDNP(40 dpa), plus a 5% flexibility buffer. The resulting housing figure being 712 dpa. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes (rounded) would need to be identified. Sustainable and suitable locations for growth, such as Chidham and Hambrook parish, should be revisited to help need the housing supply shortfall. The Council should also critically review the robustness of the ‘Category b Known commitments’ supply components.
The Plan should meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet needs from SDNP(40 dpa), plus a 5% flexibility buffer. The resulting housing figure being 712 dpa. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes (rounded) would need to be identified. Sustainable and suitable locations for growth, such as Chidham and Hambrook parish, should be revisited to help need the housing supply shortfall. The Council should also critically review the robustness of the ‘Category b Known commitments’ supply components.
The justification for not meeting the housing needs in full is set out in the Housing Need and Transport Background Papers (May 2024). The latest Duty to Cooperate evidence is set out in the updated Statement of Compliance.
The latest projected supply position is set out in the Housing Supply Background Paper (May 2024), which currently shows a total supply of 10,752, a buffer that amounts to approximately 4% which strikes a balance between ensuring a robust supply position while recognising the constrained housing requirement.
Object
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Policy H2 Strategic Locations/ Allocations 2021 - 2039
Representation ID: 4904
Received: 17/03/2023
Respondent: Gleeson Land
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Plan should meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet needs from SDNP(40 dpa), plus a 5% flexibility buffer. The resulting housing figure being 712 dpa. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes (rounded) would need to be identified. In view of the shortfall the housing figure apportioned to Chidham and Hambrook parish, should be increased to at least 500 dwellings over the plan period.
The Plan should meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet needs from SDNP(40 dpa), plus a 5% flexibility buffer. The resulting housing figure being 712 dpa. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes (rounded) would need to be identified. In view of the shortfall the housing figure apportioned to Chidham and Hambrook parish, should be increased to at least 500 dwellings over the plan period.
The Housing Distribution Background Paper (May 2024) sets out the justification for the site allocations and strategic parish numbers set out in Policy H2.
Object
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
Policy A12 Chidham and Hambrook
Representation ID: 4907
Received: 17/03/2023
Respondent: Gleeson Land
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? No
The Plan should meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet needs from SDNP(40 dpa), plus a 5% flexibility buffer. The resulting housing figure being 712 dpa. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes (rounded) would need to be identified. In view of the shortfall the housing figure apportioned to Chidham and Hambrook parish, should be increased to at least 500 dwellings over the plan period.
Replace 300 with 500 dwellings. Add 'significant' to clause 5 (Ensure that development avoids significant harm to protected species and existing important habitats features and facilitates the achievement of biodiversity net gain, and facilitates the creation of high levels of habitat connectivity within the site and to the wider green infrastructure network and identified strategic wildlife corridors within the parish. This includes the provision of appropriate buffers as necessary in relation to important habitats which are being retained and/or created.
The Plan should meet at least its full identified need of 638dpa, plus an additional buffer to accommodate unmet needs from SDNP(40 dpa), plus a 5% flexibility buffer. The resulting housing figure being 712 dpa. Based on the currently identified supply of 10,359 dwellings, a further circa. 2,500 homes (rounded) would need to be identified. In view of the shortfall the housing figure apportioned to Chidham and Hambrook parish, should be increased to at least 500 dwellings over the plan period.
The issues raised have been considered and the evidence base and proposed development strategy continues to support this strategic allocation
Object
Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission
4.18
Representation ID: 6021
Received: 17/03/2023
Respondent: Gleeson Land
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? Not specified
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
The wording as drafted fails the NPPF soundness tests, on the basis that: (a) Ecology-led masterplannning can ensure development is accommodated within the SWCs while fully maintaining the functional elements of the corridors; (2) The policy as drafted is also wholly inconsistent within NPPF paragraph 180, it that it only provides for development avoidance measures within the SWCs; and (3) The ‘integrity’ test element of the policy relates to undertaking Appropriate Assessments. The protection afforded within the policy wording must be proportionate to the locally important status of the designation.
Text change to paragraph 4.18:
The Council will apply an additional layer of planning restraint to the countryside protection policies within these strategic wildlife corridors to ensure that connectivity between the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB and Pagham Harbour is maintain in the long term. If a significant
adverse impact on the function of the corridor resulting from a development cannot be avoided (through locating on an alternative site with less harmful impacts), adequately mitigated, or, as a last resort, compensated for, then it will not be permitted.
The wording as drafted fails the NPPF soundness tests, on the basis that: (a) Ecology-led masterplannning can ensure development is accommodated within the SWCs while fully maintaining the functional elements of the corridors; (2) The policy as drafted is also wholly inconsistent within NPPF paragraph 180, it that it only provides for development avoidance measures within the SWCs; and (3) The ‘integrity’ test element of the policy relates to undertaking Appropriate Assessments. The protection afforded within the policy wording must be proportionate to the locally important status of the designation.
This representation appears to be a duplicate of representation number 4899. See further down this schedule for the Council’s response
