Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

Include Chichester Marina as part of Birdham Service Village, or its own service village.

Chichester Marina has an existing thriving residential community, economic community and leisure/tourism visitors which all meet to generate a genuinely mixed, balanced and sustainable community around the marina and canal.
As such and as set out in our last Regulation 18 representations, Premier believes that Chichester Marina should be considered as being part of Birdham service village, or its own service village, in recognition of the 50 residential dwellings comprising 31 houseboats and 1,750 sq m of floorspace at the Site.
The opportunity to provide sustainable residential development on the Site is important to the long term future of Chichester Marina, specifically its vitality and viability and to the local community. It is important in policy terms, that the Marina is able to provide suitable further sustainable development, considering the strategic housing and economic needs of the Local Plan. Residential uses also contributes significantly to the overall diversity and sustainability of the marinas economy and will complement the mixed commercial marine, non-marine and leisure uses on-site. Simply restricting development to local needs is unlikely to ensure the long-term strategic growth that the Marina is capable of contributing towards the Local Plan.

Accordingly, Premier suggest the wording of Policy NE2 (Part 5) is amended to ensure it is justified and consistent with national policy in accordance with paragraph 35 (b and c) of the NPPF as follows:

“5) Development proposals within the setting of Chichester Harbour AONB should recognise its status as a landscape of the highest quality and should be designed to reflect this with the scale and extent of development limited consistent with the existing site and locational context, sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the AONB in accordance with national policy. Development proposals must comply with the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD which are material planning considerations”

Premier acknowledges that the Chichester Harbour AONB is afforded the highest level of protection under paragraph 177 of the NPPF, where major development will not usually be permitted unless ‘exceptional circumstances’ development tests can be met, and where the development is in the public interest.
Premier has experience of delivering major developments within the AONB, at Chichester Marina and elsewhere in the country. It is acknowledged that development can be harmful to the AONB, however, Premier has a strong track record of delivering quality development schemes in sensitive locations.
The policy approach should be consistent and no more onerous than national planning policy in relation to AONBs.
The reference in the wording of Policy NE2 to the policy aims of the ‘Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan’ should be amended, given that:
1. This is not a statutory policy document; and
2. This Plan is not consistent with the NPPF.
Accordingly, Premier suggest the wording of Policy NE2 (Part 5) is amended to ensure it is justified and consistent with national policy in accordance with paragraph 35 (b and c) of the NPPF as follows:
“5) Development proposals within the setting of Chichester Harbour AONB should recognise its status as a landscape of the highest quality and should be designed to reflect this with the scale and extent of development limited consistent with the existing site and locational context, sensitively located and designed to avoid or minimise adverse impacts on the AONB in accordance with national policy. Development proposals must comply with the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD which are material planning considerations”.

Premier agree with the premise of Draft Policy NE6 and recognise the need to address water and nutrient neutrality issues. That said, Premier acknowledge the practical difficulties in guaranteeing nutrient neutral position for the lifetime of the development and suggest the ‘appropriate mitigation’ has regard for existing residents and the commercial viability of businesses and is proportionate to the scale of development proposed to ensure this doesn’t not render development unviable and to avoid overburdening local residents and businesses.
Premier recognise the unique qualities of the Chichester Marina’s location and the areas’ international and national designated habitats. With this is mind and factoring in Premier’s responsibilities as the long-term manager and steward of the Site, Premier is committed to protecting Chichester Marina’s sensitive habitats in the interests of protecting local wildlife.

Policy wording should be amended as follows to ensure the policy is more effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:

“Development proposals that make provision for through navigation or enhancement supports the further use and enhancement of the Chichester Ship Canal and/or the Wey and Arun Canal will be supported where they meet environmental, ecological, historical and transport considerations. This includes improvements to the existing houseboat population and further houseboat development on the canal.

Development proposals will be permitted where they preserve and enhance the remaining line and configuration of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal and the features within it, with no overall adverse effect. Where no such line and configuration remains, proposals to reinterpret the alignment within new development proposals will be supported where they protect and enhance the culture, history and natural environment and consideration is given to local impacts”.

Premier is a key stakeholder and user of the Chichester Ship Canal, holding a long leasehold interest from West Sussex District Council for the Canal from Chichester Harbour to the A286.
The Canal was largely abandoned by 1928 having fallen into disuse. Yacht moorings on the Canal along the stretch now adjacent to Chichester Marina were retained and their use as such pre-dates the building of the marina. There are currently 31 houseboats moored along this stretch of Canal. Much of the Canal is heavily silted and the two main road bridges have been replaced by unnavigable culverts preventing navigation of the canal.
It is highly unlikely that the canal can ever become navigable. Doing so would require major infrastructure works, including re-routing of or bridges over the A286 and B2201. The ecological designations affecting the various parts of the Canal (including the SAC, AONB and protected species) will also affect the possibility of such major infrastructure works being undertaken.
Given this, the policy approach should recognise and support the potential of the Canal’s historic use for houseboat living rather than holding out for a navigable canal which will almost certainly never be delivered and economic benefits that are not clearly established. Premier supports a policy approach that encourages “increased recreation, leisure pursuits and economic activity” but it believes that policy should explicitly include houseboats. These support the on-going management of the Canal and public access to it, support marine employment (houseboats use the same electrical and marine systems as recreational boats and therefore support marine employment), and add to the mix of site uses positively. As such, the policy wording should be amended as follows to ensure the policy is more effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:
“Development proposals that make provision for through navigation or enhancement supports the further use and enhancement of the Chichester Ship Canal and/or the Wey and Arun Canal will be supported where they meet environmental, ecological, historical and transport considerations. This includes improvements to the existing houseboat population and further houseboat development on the canal.
Development proposals will be permitted where they preserve and enhance the remaining line and configuration of the Portsmouth and Arundel Canal and the features within it, with no overall adverse effect. Where no such line and configuration remains, proposals to reinterpret the alignment within new development proposals will be supported where they protect and enhance the culture, history and natural environment and consideration is given to local impacts”.

Addition of 'or developed site for employment uses within the B Use Class, an existing employment site' to clause 4.

The response to this policy is related to the above comments regarding Policy S2, namely, that Chichester Marina should be considered within a settlement boundary and not as ‘countryside’. The Site is not open countryside, it has a long established residential and working population, a unique leisure and tourism offer, is host to a range of businesses and one of the UK’s most successful yacht clubs.
The Site is developed, with over 5,000 sqm of commercial and leisure floorspace, and 1,100 berths. Therefore, this is not a typical ‘rural’ countryside setting.
Should Chichester Marina not be incorporated within a settlement, and remain as designated ‘countryside’, this policy approach would stifle the economic viability and ongoing contribution of the marina.

Remove reference to 25m setback and suggest that minimum setbacks be considered on a case by case basis based on flood and ground conditions analysis.

Premier welcome supporting paragraph 4.77 and the importance of an “active marine economy, including boatyards and marina sites” and the associated benefits of these to the economy of the wider area and a for tourism and recreation.
However, supporting paragraph 4.78 states that: “exceptionally… a small part of a marina or boatyard to be used for alternative uses”, is unacceptably restrictive. This relates also to the comments made in respect of Draft Policy NE11.
The case has clearly been made in relation to other policy elements around the need for economic diversification at marinas in association with maintaining existing employment uses and supporting new tourism/leisure developments.
The policy direction acknowledges that housing pressure from Government is a relevant concern. Premier considers that residential and leisure and tourism uses are essential to waterside placemaking and its portfolio of 10 marinas demonstrates that these uses not only co-exist comfortably with marine uses but enhance and contribute to the sense of place.
Chichester Marina has an established residential community on-site. This includes the 31 residential houseboats on the Chichester Canal on which residential use dates back over 50 years. More recently, in 2016, Premier invested £4m at Chichester Marina in converting redundant and end of life office and retail property into of 19 residential apartments. These are let on a short term and a long-term basis to people either looking for a short break. or a more permanent residence in the marina and have provided a new lease of life to otherwise redundant buildings.
The majority of successful marinas offer a wide range if uses from residential through to retail and commercial. Amongst Premier’s portfolio of ten marinas there is residential use either on or immediately adjacent to nine of its sites. Residential use is widely acknowledged as being highly complementary to marinas, which in turn provide the context for residences.
Premier has an established record in master planning marinas and waterside place making. Port Solent, a marina comprising residential, retail, commercial and marine uses, was the first example of this. More recently, in 2018, Premier secured hybrid planning permission for a mixed-use scheme at Noss on Dart Marina, located in the South Hams AONB. The scheme offers a high quality new marina, boatyard, commercial development and hotel alongside a substantial residential development. Although localised to reflect the uniqueness of its location, the approved plans for Noss on Dart demonstrate that the mixed-use sustainable development which is critical to ensuring the longevity of marinas and the communities which they support is possible in sensitive areas.
The masterplan for Noss on Dart is widely acknowledged as setting the standard for marina master planning and provides an example of what can be achieved in a countryside and AONB location that is very similar to that of Chichester Marina. Both sites share similar operational and socio-economic challenges the importance of diversification to creating sustainable marinas cannot be underestimated.
In addition, Premier suggest the specific requirement for new development around Chichester Harbour and Pagham Harbour to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level to allow for future erosion) should be removed as this will stifle development. Whilst Premier recognise the importance of flooding and issues with coastal erosion, this ‘catch all’ policy is too restrictive and instead minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

We propose the following AONB policy alterations to ensure Policy NE13 is more effective and consistent with national policy accordance with paragraph 35 (c and d) of the NPPF:

“The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that:

1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;

2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB as defined in National Policy in the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan;

3. Either individually or cumulatively, development does not lead to actual or perceived coalescence of settlements or undermine the integrity or predominantly open and undeveloped, rural character of the AONB and its setting, including views into and from the South Downs National Park;

4. The development is appropriate and contributes to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area and its communities or is desirable for the access, use, understanding and enjoyment of the area;

5. The development is consistent with the policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD; and.

6. New development is set back at least 25m from the mean high water level in line with Policy NE12, with replacement buildings set further back whenever possible.

Proposals for major development will be refused other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework”.

Premier suggest the requirement in point 6 for new development to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level) should be removed as this will stifle development. Minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

Premier has experience of delivering major developments within the AONB, at Chichester Marina and elsewhere in the country. It is acknowledged that development can be harmful to the AONB, however, Premier has a strong track record of delivering quality development schemes in sensitive locations.
The policy approach should be consistent and no more onerous than national planning policy in relation to AONBs.
The reference in the wording of Policy NE13 to the policy aims of the ‘Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan’ should be amended, given that:
1. This is not a statutory policy document; and
2. This Plan is not consistent with the NPPF.
The supporting text acknowledges the needs of existing communities within the AONB and the development needs of these communities. It should be emphasised that this also includes communities contributing to the economic viability and success of the AONB, including tourism and leisure.
Therefore, we propose the following AONB policy alterations to ensure Policy NE13 is more effective and consistent with national policy accordance with paragraph 35 (c and d) of the NPPF:
“The impact of individual proposals and their cumulative effect on Chichester Harbour AONB and its setting will be carefully assessed. Planning permission will be granted where it can be demonstrated that:
1. The natural beauty and locally distinctive features of the AONB are conserved and enhanced;
2. Proposals reinforce and respond to, rather than detract from, the distinctive character and special qualities of the AONB as defined in National Policy in the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan;
3. Either individually or cumulatively, development does not lead to actual or perceived coalescence of settlements or undermine the integrity or predominantly open and undeveloped, rural character of the AONB and its setting, including views into and from the South Downs National Park;
4. The development is appropriate and contributes to the economic, social and environmental well-being of the area and its communities or is desirable for the access, use, understanding and enjoyment of the area;
5. The development is consistent with the policy aims of the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan and Joint Chichester Harbour AONB SPD; and.
6. New development is set back at least 25m from the mean high water level in line with Policy NE12, with replacement buildings set further back whenever possible.
Proposals for major development will be refused other than in exceptional circumstances, and where it can be demonstrated to be in the public interest, as set out in the National Planning Policy Framework”.
As per the above commentary in respect to Policy NE12, Premier suggest the requirement in point 6 for new development to be setback 25 metres (measured from the mean high water level) should be removed as this will stifle development. Minimum setbacks should be considered on a site-by-site basis based in necessary flood / ground conditions analysis.

The policy should allow flexibility for the type of non-domestic buildings.

Premier support the thrust of this policy and the need to protect water neutrality through water efficient design in accordance with BREEAM or an equivalent standard. That said, the policy should allow flexibility for the type of non-domestic buildings.
Premier welcome the Council’s decision for new developments to bring forward their own offsetting schemes and taking a pragmatic approach to offsetting.

Add the following after " or by means of agreed mitigation measures":

to be agreed on a site by site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development".

Premier support the policy approach to protecting water quality from nitrates and associated impacts on wildlife given the Chichester Harbour Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) designation. That said, Premier suggest the policy is amended below to make explicit reference for mitigation to be agreed on a site-by-site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development to ensure it is effective in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF.
“Development involving an overnight stay (including in dwellings and all forms of holiday accommodation) that discharges into Chichester and Langstone Harbour SPA/ Ramsar (either surface water, non mains drainage development or through wastewater treatment works) will be required to demonstrate that it will be nutrient neutral for the lifetime of the development, either by its own means or by means of agreed mitigation measures to be agreed on a site-by-site basis and to be proportionate and reasonable to the scale of proposed development”.

In the interest of diversifying employment uses and making the policy more effective in accordance with paragraph 35© of the NPPF, the policy should therefore be amended accordingly:

“Existing employment sites will be retained to safeguard their contribution to the local economy. Changes of use which retain or increase employment will be supported. Employment uses other than those in use classes E(g), B2 or B8 which require planning permission, will be permitted on existing employment sites provided they are of a similar character in terms of providing jobs, the skills they require and their contribution to long-term economic growth. Where the proposed alternative use is a main town centre use, the sequential test set out in national policy must be met.

Where planning permission is required for alternative non-employment uses on land or floorspace currently in or last used for employment generating uses, it must be demonstrated (in terms of the evidence requirements in Appendix C) that the site is no longer required and is unlikely to be re-used or redeveloped for employment uses to meet future demand”

Premier understands and supports the need to protect employment land for the wider viability and economic success of the district. Indeed the objectives of maintaining “a flexible supply of employment land and premises” and the retention of “suitable employment sites and encouraging their refurbishment, upgrading and intensification to meet modern business needs” are supported by Premier.
Premier would however stress the importance of recognising leisure and community uses in employment areas which is not currently acknowledged. Diversification for leisure uses is particularly relevant to waterside locations, as set out below in respect to Policy NE11, relating to suitable development at the Coastal area.
Supporting paragraph (7.17) states:
“Given the limited opportunities for employment uses with direct access to the coast, and reflecting the Chichester Harbour Conservancy Management Plan’s planning principles, particular scrutiny will be given to the marketing evidence for marine related employment sites with the aim of preserving these uses”.
The Chichester Harbour Conservancy Management Plan is not a statutory Development Plan Document, and nor is it considered to be a robust policy approach. Indeed, Premier made representations to a number of elements in this Plan through the consultation period (see appended to these representations). Fundamentally, this Plan should not be cross-referenced as it is not in compliance with national policy, and therefore is not a sound policy basis.
The definition of ‘marine-related employment sites’ could be interpreted so as to prevent the flexibility that is promoted by much of the supporting text to Policy E2 and which is required in a changing marine industry. Interpreted too narrowly, this paragraph will have the opposite effect to that intended. Lengthy marketing periods risk leaving a property empty and creating no employment when a change of use would create employment and further economic benefits.
Paragraph 7.17 should recognise the relevance of complimentary uses which support the economic viability of marinas. These include not only leisure and tourism and but also other uses to be able to “accommodate needs not anticipated in the plan, allow for new and flexible working practices (such as live-work accommodation), and to enable a rapid response to changes in economic circumstances” as per paragraph 81 of the NPPF.
Paragraph 83 of the NPPF requires that “Planning policies and decisions should recognise and address the specific locational requirements of different sectors”. Chichester Marina can also be argued to form part of the rural economy, and the NPPF (paragraph 84) supports “the development of and diversification of… land-based rural businesses… sustainable rural tourism and leisure developments which respect the character of the countryside”.
The policy supporting text wording for paragraph 7.17 should therefore be amended to “marine related and supporting and ancillary uses” in recognition of this, and in accordance with the NPPF, Policy NE11 and paragraph 7.17 of the Plan.
Dealing with the Policy text, Premier considers that it is only appropriate for changes from employment to residential use to require demonstration that properties are no longer suitable for employment uses. Changes of use which retain or enhance employment should be encouraged as this will provide employment sites with the flexibility they require to respond to market changes and prevent loss of employment.
In the interest of diversifying employment uses and making the policy more effective in accordance with paragraph 35© of the NPPF, the policy should therefore be amended accordingly:
“Existing employment sites will be retained to safeguard their contribution to the local economy. Changes of use which retain or increase employment will be supported. Employment uses other than those in use classes E(g), B2 or B8 which require planning permission, will be permitted on existing employment sites provided they are of a similar character in terms of providing jobs, the skills they require and their contribution to long-term economic growth. Where the proposed alternative use is a main town centre use, the sequential test set out in national policy must be met.
Where planning permission is required for alternative non-employment uses on land or floorspace currently in or last used for employment generating uses, it must be demonstrated (in terms of the evidence requirements in Appendix C) that the site is no longer required and is unlikely to be re-used or redeveloped for employment uses to meet future demand”.