Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Object

Representation ID: 4243

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Further detailed policy support is required to deliver sustainable growth in sectors such as the hospitality and visitor economy. The plan does not provide an appropriate framework to support the on-going needs and evolution of businesses within that sector, such as The Goodwood Estate, where there is often conflict between policy objectives, e.g. new development and environmental protection, or a failure to recognise the environmental benefits arising from the historic and future activities of the Estate.

In advance of the Plan’s publication the Estate wrote to the LPA setting out how it believed the Plan should respond to its specific needs, while protecting the plan’s aims ad objectives. This letter, dated 10th January 2023 and copy appended, should be read alongside comments made through this consultation response.

This objective is to support a diverse economy, including the sectors mentioned but a more explicit reference to hospitality and vehicle manufacture can be added.

Object

Representation ID: 4245

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The importance of access to open, linked green and blue spaces cannot be underestimated.

The definition of land as Countryside or land located beyond the settlement edge, while offering a level of protection, is an insufficient policy constraint to speculative housing driven justified by local housing demand.

The plan must make appropriate and robust provision for housing need within the material constraints imposed on the District, with those constraints being supported by clear policy.

Policy NE10 sets out when development in the countryside is acceptable – a blanket ban would not be appropriate. Green infrastructure is covered by P14 and landscape gaps by NE3

Object

Representation ID: 4255

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The plan should provide greater weight to the importance of developer contributions in the delivery of infrastructure. The plan should require contributions that go beyond the immediate infrastructure needs of the specific development, and seek contributions towards significant infrastructure deficits that exist as a result of a lack of public and private development. Contributions should be reasonable at all times, but it is not unreasonable for new developments to contribute to long-standing infrastructure deficits, which will be required and used by the future residents for whom they are providing housing.

S106 has to meet the requirements set out in Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) meaning that its use is limited to addressing the impacts of its development. CIL is to be used to address the cumulative impacts of new development, and cannot be used to address underlying infrastructure deficits unless these are also required to support the new development.

Object

Representation ID: 4256

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Support is offered to this policy and its role in encouraging sound new developments, but the Estate remains concerned that compliance is too easily claimed by developers without demonstrable evidence.

The plan should adopt a logical, common sense approach to compliance, judging accessibility and sustainability as would a ‘man in the street’ – the fact a development might be physically close, within reasonable walking distance of services, does not mean it will encourage people out of their cars when doing the weekly shop.

The comment is noted although it is not clear what change is being sought to Policy T2. It can be confirmed that all planning applications are carefully assessed in relation to the compliance of proposals with policies and all permissions being built out are subject to the planning enforcement process as allowed by the Law and national planning policy and guidance.

Object

Representation ID: 4259

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Supported – provision of local design codes should be a priority, particularly for sites allocated for development, such that it can be addressed when a site is first promoted or purchased for development.

Heritage and character is vital to the area’s economic base. Policies should be supportive of these assets and their evolution.

Support in principle noted. Please see separate response to representation 4291 with regards to objections raised

Object

Representation ID: 4260

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Greater emphasis must be placed through development and site-specific policies to ensure essential infrastructure is provided ‘up front’ before first occupation, and other infrastructure needs provided before the development is completed or the developer has meaningfully left the site.

Past developments have failed to achieve improvements to the A27 and its junctions, and the proximity of some has constrained future opportunities for improvement. The developments, particularly volume housebuilding have added to, rather than mitigated congestion, by following a blinkered, site-centric attitude to meeting housing numbers without responsibility for infrastructure impacts.

The principal causes of A27 congestion are local traffic movements from and to an inadequate local highway network, made worse by poorly integrated new developments, and conflicted priorities between through and crossing traffic. The solution is not as many local people believe to replace the A27 completely with a very costly new “by-pas” of limited economic or environmental benefit to the city and district. Past by-pass proposals have failed to correctly assess the true economic cost of options promoted, or the cost and benefits of tackling the issues at a local level of on-line improvements and co-ordinated improvements in the local highway network; the latter in part being hampered by differing responsibilities (National and local – the limits of which are guarded religiously) and a failure to engage appropriately and positively to solve a common problem.

Neither the local plan nor its strategies should be based on any A27 by-pass premise and should not make provision for any A27 by-pass proposal.

Policy I1 requires infrastructure and its timing to be secured by way of condition or legal requirement. It is those conditions or legal agreements that will set out the detailed phasing and housing triggers.

It would not be practical to prevent all development from being provided until all accompanying infrastructure is completed as that would not be economically viable.

S106 has to meet the requirements set out in Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) meaning that its use is limited to addressing the impacts of its development. CIL is to be used to address the cumulative impacts of new development, and cannot be used to address underlying infrastructure deficits unless these are also required to support the new development.

The intention is that infrastructure providers take responsibility to ensure that the infrastructure it provides is maintained into the future. It is up to the developer to make such arrangements to ensure this happens. This often happens by the developer after the first year or so setting up a management company, whereby the residents pay a management fee to maintain the up-keep of communal facilities.

As much information as the Council has at present is included within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which accompanies this Local Plan.

Critical infrastructure would have to be delivered in advance, but all other infrastructure would be delivered in tandem with development, particularly that infrastructure to be delivered through S106 linked to triggers in the S106 agreement.

Object

Representation ID: 4261

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Permission has been granted at appeal for further development on land removed from the former strategic allocation. Implementation will exceed Policy A9’s housing target.

The site is most unsuitable for housing development. The delivery of the approved housing is far from guaranteed, and should the permission lapse, the new local plan policy is an appropriate way to control future development proposals.

Paragraphs 10.37 and 10.38 of the Plan set out that this allocation has now been permitted. Environmental, social and planning constraints would have been considered at the determination of the planning applications. As pointed out at paragraph 1.12, the plan should be read as a ‘whole’ and policies will not be applied in isolation

Object

Representation ID: 4262

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? Not specified

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

While building on the previous local plan in terms of spatial strategy, the plan at this paragraph should clarify the strategic change now imposed which removes land from previous site allocations – Policy A9 and Map A9a Westhampnett/North East Chichester

As the reasoned justification to Policy A9 references the fact that the allocations are within a broad strategic development location in the adopted Local Plan, it is considered unnecessary to amend the plan as suggested.

Object

Representation ID: 4265

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Further development at this location is inappropriate for reason of noise, public safety (from existing operations) and the agent of change principle. Living conditions of future residents/occupiers will be unreasonable.

Paragraphs 10.37 and 10.38 of the Plan set out that this allocation has now been permitted. Environmental, social and planning constraints would have been considered at the determination of the planning applications. As pointed out at paragraph 1.12, the plan should be read as a ‘whole’ and policies will not be applied in isolation

Object

Representation ID: 4268

Received: 15/03/2023

Respondent: The Goodwood Estates Company Limited

Agent: HMPC Ltd

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Paragraph is supported subject to our comments made in respect of paragraph 1.20 and the identification of important areas of countryside (see comments in respect of Objective 5) and the need to sustain and evolve business and environmental interests to the north of the A27.

In addition to the natural environment policies regarding the AONB and the identification/protection of landscape gaps, Policy P14 seeks to ensure development proposals protect existing and improve provision of green infrastructure.