Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Convenient walking and cycling routes and availability of public transport should be more than a measurable distance, to include an assessment of the practicality and suitability of the routes as an alternative to use of the private car.

New development in accessible locations is supported but the definition of accessibility should be examined in detail and explained through the plan, with reference to development locations.

Convenient walking and cycling routes and availability of public transport should be more than a measurable distance, to include an assessment of the practicality and suitability of the routes as an alternative to use of the private car.

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.

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.

The plan should clarify its expectations of design quality and ensure that all development responds positively to the National Design Code as a minimum – this could be written into general development management policies.

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

The policy and supporting text should cross-reference with Policies A16/A17, and paragraphs 10.71- 10.75. Similar cross-reference should be made to MapA9a .

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.

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 MapA9a Westhampnett/North East Chichester

Important areas of countryside / landscape should be identified in the plan and protected from development by an appropriate policy.

Policy S2 Generally supported but further detail is required

We suggest (in representations to site-specific policies in Chapter 10) further changes to the local plan which would reinforce the current, workable, arrangements, but also indicate where further developments around the airfield could result in further undue restrictions on operations to the detriment of Estate business and with it very serious consequences for the district economy.

Chapter 8 should make reference to the role of aviation in transportation. The NPPF (paragraph 106f) requires local planning policies to: “recognise the importance of maintaining a national network of general aviation airfields, and their need to adapt and change over time – taking into account their economic value in serving business, leisure, training and emergency service needs, and the Government’s General Aviation Strategy.” The plan does not make such references and is therefore not compliant with the NPPF and consequently is unsound.

Goodwood Aerodrome is a general aviation airfield.

Moreover, the plan should make provision for how aviation is likely to change in the future, with technological advances, not only in terms of being more accessible to the public for sport and recreation, but also the impact of STEM activities and their important role in future aviation and the advance of drone and similar technologies. Goodwood Airfield is closely and actively engaged with developers of such technology and this is likely to become an increasing sector of the Estate’s business.

General aviation airfields, such as Goodwood, frequently have sufficient land available for new aviation-related facilities (unlike constrained commercial airfields) and provide a major infrastructure resource. Unfortunately, this benefit is often overlooked in planning policies, and many airfields are subjected to threats of redevelopment – for reasons of viability fuelled by a high demand for housing land- and increasing resistance to developments supporting aerodrome business (such as potential noise and disturbance to adjoining residential areas)

Local political reaction to activities at many general aviation airfields has led to the introduction of restrictive planning policies, many related to noise and disturbance and a fear of expansion. Goodwood airfield is no exception, but it has worked with the local community over many years to reach an operational position that provides a balance between continued operation and protection of local amenities. Unfortunately in recent years, particularly as a result of an ill-founded strategic development allocation in the previous local plan, that operational balance is coming under further strain and cannot be further adjusted.

A position is fast approaching where operations at the airfield and motor circuit could be compromised unacceptably by the encroachment of new development, in particular housing development. This was ably demonstrated by the speculative housing proposal north of Madgwick Lane to which both the Estate and planning authority objected for reason, amongst many others, potential noise disturbance, safety concerns and operational constraints which contributed to an unacceptable ‘agent of change’ situation.

The proposal was subject to public inquiry and a finely balanced decision was granted in favour of development by the inspector for reason of the benefits of new housing outweighing the potential harm to Goodwood operations, on grounds that the (unproven) mitigation offered by the developer will be both provided and be effective, and we suggest, a misunderstanding of the true impacts of existing operations.

The Estate will continue to oppose the development for sound planning reasons that the mitigation offered and based on inaccurate evidence, will be inadequate and ineffective in addressing the concerns raise by the Estate and planning authority.

The Plan should require developers of unallocated sites to demonstrate that their housing is proposed specifically to meet the needs of a local demand for people living and working within the district to reduce the potential for increased potential through generic speculative development.

Policy must require new (and in particular speculative) housing proposals to move beyond the simple and transient benefit of providing additional housing, upon which the case for most speculative developers rely, and make a true, measurable and meaningful contribution to the community.

The plan must be more robust in its resistance to further generic estate development, requiring such proposals to present true and demonstrable evidence:
- it can make appropriate provision for future residents,
- it is truly sustainable in all aspects of the term, and
- makes a positive and measurable contribution to the district in terms of economics, infrastructure and general well-being.

We support generally the work the planning authority has undertaken in co-operation with neighbouring authorities, but consider weaknesses remain in the sustainable distribution of housing and other development needs that reduces the need for commuting and unnecessary travel.

The plan should explain in greater detail the findings of co-operative working with neighbouring authorities to achieve a more sustainable spatial strategy, that provides a “joined up” spatial vision and does not follow a ‘silo-mentality’ of providing only for district needs.

The growth of suburbia, beloved by volume housebuilders, and exacerbated by the Government’s unduly simplistic approach to meeting local housing need quickly, serves only to exacerbate many of the problems the local plan seeks to address.

Evidence of co-operative working and a step-change from ‘more of the same’ in terms of housing provision, will make the Plan more sound. It is essential if the plan area is to be protected from inappropriate speculative housing promoted solely on grounds of housing numbers.

The ability of neighbouring authorities, including the National Park, to provide for appropriate, further growth, including that generated within Chichester District but using employment and service opportunities beyond district boundaries, should be explained and reflected in policies and allocations.

Recognition of the importance of Goodwood House and Park is welcomed, but the value of the Estate to the District (and indeed the National Park) goes well beyond the designated parkland. The Estate is an inter-linked body, where individual elements rely on other parts, activities or events to be sustainable. The Estate is embarked on a long-term strategy to both restore original features and to introduce new, that will continue the evolution of one of the Nation’s significant parklands.