Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

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”.

Premier welcome the Council’s housing target for the plan area is to provide for at least 10,350 dwellings (equivalent to 575 dwellings per annum) to be delivered in the period 2021-2039 including 310 non-strategic Parish housing requirements and 657 windfall site allowances. However this is below the housing requirement of 13,734 (equivalent to 763 dwellings per annum) derived from the Governments Standard Method for the same period, resulting in a significant shortfall of 3,384 dwellings, notwithstanding the fact that the Council are “now unable to accommodate any unmet need from the part of the South Downs National Park within Chichester District” (as stated at supporting paragraph 5.1 to Policy H1) which has potential Duty to Co-operate implications.

In respect to five year housing land supply (5YHLS) considerations, it is noted CDC’s ‘Chichester Local Plan Area – Five Year Housing Land Supply 2022-2027 (Updated Position at 1 April 2022) statement identifies a potential housing supply of 3,174 net dwellings over the period 2022-2027. This compares with an identified housing requirement of 3,350 net dwellings. This results in a shortfall of 176 net dwellings, equivalent to 4.74 years of housing supply. The Council can therefore not demonstrate a 5YHLS as confirmed by recent appeal decisions , .

In the interests of maximising housing delivery and satisfying the Council’s objectively assessed housing needs, Policy H1 should be revised to state the housing requirement figure derived by the Government’s Standard Method so as to ensure the policy is “effective” and the new Local Plan has been “positively prepared” in accordance with paragraph 35 (a and c) of the NPPF.

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”.

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.

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”.

The draft policy makes provision for non-strategic growth beyond the site allocation identified, including small-scale employment, tourism or leisure proposals. We would propose that the wording ‘small-scale’ is not effective as it is not specific, and therefore propose that the policy is reworded accordingly in accordance with paragraph 35(c) of the NPPF:
b. “Local community facilities, including village shops, that meet identified needs both within the village, neighbouring villages and surrounding smaller communities, and also the wider needs of the District in relation to the strategic aims of the Plan, and will help make the settlement more self-sufficient in the immediate and long-term; and
c. Small scale employment, tourism or leisure proposals related to sustaining and enhancing existing sites and communities”.
It should be recognised that whilst clearly the majority of major development will be directed towards main settlement hubs, that the unique characteristics of the District should be considered in terms of offering further specific development opportunities to sustain the economic viability and housing capacity required.
The Plan sets out a requirement to consider in the next review, the allocation of a strategic new settlement, in order to meet housing need. As such, development which is sustainable and capable of contributing towards development needs in the shorter term should be considered favourably in line the NPPG.

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.

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.

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”.