Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

The inspector should investigate how many people's comments were deleted. Given the amount of responses they actually acknowledge, the plan should have been re-consulted on before the S19 consultation.

Some of my comments from the Preferred Approach consultation were deleted by the planning authority without warning. I only spotted this when I went back to see what I had written to help someone else with another matter. Their reason being that they 'thought they were a duplication' of comments written in another section. This was not the case - related points were linked by reference to each other but each was individually written and included proposed modifications to the wording.

As above. new DPD should come before this document is approved. The site allocations are not sound and possibly not compliant - see comments elsewhere.

This plan appears to contradict the DPD. It should be noted that where a new DPD is adopted it will take precedence over this document. My comment is generated in response to Bosham site Allocation which is not sound.

Sustainability Appraisals should be independently assessed for soundness and the. sections they inform be rewritten on that basis.

The SA's that have been undertaken appear to be have been done to fit the proposed site allocations not vice versa. Sites that seem to have a better sustainability appraisal seem to have been ignored/modified/rejected for no apparent reasons or wighting has not been given to sustainable items such as distance fromt transport hubs and ability and proposensity to offset/mitigate environmental factors have been ignored. I refer specifically to the HIghGrove and French Gardens sites in the Bosham section.

Greater weight should be given to these elements of the plan by encouraging smaller sites to be allocated driving innovation and in this context choice of lifestyle.

The plan does not provide adequate provision for self build or for people who would like to live in Passivhaus or similar standard buildings.

The council should do a district wide survey to assess the real demand for self builds which is considerably higher than the registered numbers.

The way of registering for self build is too onerous and makes it difficult to register.

1. Should be modified to remove 'or future' as a future plan may not deal with existing (today) need with in a Parish such a Bosham where no affordable units have been built in over 10 years. The other constraints 2-7 would stop a large exception site coming forward anyway so we are only talking 5-25 units ish.
9. Similarly this seems to suggest that if homes are being planned elsewhere then exception sites cannot be built. i do not feel that is correct.

I believe that this policy rules out exception sites from coming forward. The local plan is supposed to cater for both existing and future need across the whole district, but if there is existing need within a Parish that is not being built either due to future loading of district houses or because applications are not being built out or even coming forward then exception sites should be allowed. I do not believe this is how the NPPF is intended to be interpreted.

If we accept the proposed 295-300 homes I proposed that this is split more in line with the Village Plan and consultation and which is more sustainable, viable and robust in terms of actual delivery. I suggest that an additional 220 houses are allocated to HighGrove Farm (270 in total) and 25-30 to HBO0003 which adjoins Bosham Station. HBO0003 is considered 'developable' in the HELAA although the map incorrectly colours it red.

I object to the increased allocation at Highgrove Farm and the evidence submitted that has arrived at this allocation. I represent The French Gardens (TFG) site which has been incorrectly coloured red on the HELAA and incorrectly assessed on the Sustainability Assessment. These errors have been blindly carried forward reulting in a gross lack of soundness. Briefly 1.TFG is lower grade soil. 2. TFG was preferred by locals in the Village consultation. 3. TFG no impact on East-West coalescence, SDNP and AONB. 4. TFG would result in reinvestment into dilapdated rural business. 5. TFG mitigation available onsite etc.

Bosham needs a consultation since its allocation has gone from 50-300 without any resident input about where these might be allocated. Residents accepted that the Parish Council could not finish the plan but thought that they would still be consulted on where they wanted houses or at least that the previous consultation (adopted document) would be given due weight.

The Examiner of Bosham's plan suggested that residents would still have a say in where housing was allocated within the village. That has bot happened with no consultation with landowners or residents other than to propose one single site. Residents voted to accept the modifications based on teh inspectors comments which to date have not been upheld.

220 additional houses should be allocated to HighGrove with 25 allocated to HBO0003. This allows greater biodiversity gain on both sites, it reduces pressure on a singular access point on the A259, reduces the impact of Highgrove on the AONB and SDNP, it is better supported by local residents, it would allow re-investment in the local area creating a more resilient Rural community, rather than just going to shareholders.

Allocating an additional 245 houses to Highgrove is at odds with the Village Plan. It coalesces unnecessarily East-West, it isnt the lowest grade soil, it doesnt respect residents wishes as consulted in the Neighbourhood Plan. It incorrectly draws on erroneous HELAA data.

Reduce allocation to 220 (plus existing 50) to allow greater visual corridors and tree planting.

The allocation does not give due weight to the setting of the AONB and SDNP. The permanent loss of views from one to the other cannot be mitigated against and is a permament loss to the local community and nation as a whole. If housing is allocated to this site it should be the minimum possible.