Chichester Local Plan 2021 - 2039: Proposed Submission

We would suggest that a 10% buffer be applied to be accounted for within the Draft Plan.

See attached.

Conclusion

In light of all the above we contend that Sites HOV0006 (Sherwood Nursery) and HOV0012 (Landsdowne Nursery) should be reconsidered for allocation for housing development in the Draft Plan. The Sites are positively assessed in the HELAA, and are situated adjacent to existing consented and planned allocated sites. This area is clearly suitable for new housing. The Sites are previously developed and provide an opportunity for new housing in a sustainable location, without encroaching onto greenfield land. In this context the natural next step would be to add the Sites to the draft Plan as additional site allocations for residential development.
We put these two sites forward with the intention to provide high quality housing in an area with an identified need. We have made it clear in the above representations that the Sites are eminently available, sustainably located and can provide much needed new residential units.
The District Council’s proposed housing figures for the Plan period are considered to be insufficient to meet the needs of the District when the significant unmet needs of adjacent and other nearby authorities are taken into account.
In this context, the broad location of Shopwhyke (east of Chichester) is acknowledged as being a sustainable location in the context of Chichester District, and we consider that it should be aiming to provide an increased housing figure during the Plan period.
The Sites are unconstrained by any landscape or other planning designations. The work that has been undertaken, and the conclusions of which clearly identify that the Sites are suitable for development.
We contend that Sherwood Nursery should be removed from the Strategic Wildlife Corridor designation for the reasons we have set out.
In its current form, we contend that the Draft Plan does not meet soundness tests insofar that it does not positively contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and nor does it comply with the strategic policies of the area, by failing to provide a sufficient quantum of housing.

Allocate submitted sites.

See attached.

Conclusion

In light of all the above we contend that Sites HOV0006 (Sherwood Nursery) and HOV0012 (Landsdowne Nursery) should be reconsidered for allocation for housing development in the Draft Plan. The Sites are positively assessed in the HELAA, and are situated adjacent to existing consented and planned allocated sites. This area is clearly suitable for new housing. The Sites are previously developed and provide an opportunity for new housing in a sustainable location, without encroaching onto greenfield land. In this context the natural next step would be to add the Sites to the draft Plan as additional site allocations for residential development.
We put these two sites forward with the intention to provide high quality housing in an area with an identified need. We have made it clear in the above representations that the Sites are eminently available, sustainably located and can provide much needed new residential units.
The District Council’s proposed housing figures for the Plan period are considered to be insufficient to meet the needs of the District when the significant unmet needs of adjacent and other nearby authorities are taken into account.
In this context, the broad location of Shopwhyke (east of Chichester) is acknowledged as being a sustainable location in the context of Chichester District, and we consider that it should be aiming to provide an increased housing figure during the Plan period.
The Sites are unconstrained by any landscape or other planning designations. The work that has been undertaken, and the conclusions of which clearly identify that the Sites are suitable for development.
We contend that Sherwood Nursery should be removed from the Strategic Wildlife Corridor designation for the reasons we have set out.
In its current form, we contend that the Draft Plan does not meet soundness tests insofar that it does not positively contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and nor does it comply with the strategic policies of the area, by failing to provide a sufficient quantum of housing.

Amend wildlife corridor.

See attached.

Conclusion

In light of all the above we contend that Sites HOV0006 (Sherwood Nursery) and HOV0012 (Landsdowne Nursery) should be reconsidered for allocation for housing development in the Draft Plan. The Sites are positively assessed in the HELAA, and are situated adjacent to existing consented and planned allocated sites. This area is clearly suitable for new housing. The Sites are previously developed and provide an opportunity for new housing in a sustainable location, without encroaching onto greenfield land. In this context the natural next step would be to add the Sites to the draft Plan as additional site allocations for residential development.
We put these two sites forward with the intention to provide high quality housing in an area with an identified need. We have made it clear in the above representations that the Sites are eminently available, sustainably located and can provide much needed new residential units.
The District Council’s proposed housing figures for the Plan period are considered to be insufficient to meet the needs of the District when the significant unmet needs of adjacent and other nearby authorities are taken into account.
In this context, the broad location of Shopwhyke (east of Chichester) is acknowledged as being a sustainable location in the context of Chichester District, and we consider that it should be aiming to provide an increased housing figure during the Plan period.
The Sites are unconstrained by any landscape or other planning designations. The work that has been undertaken, and the conclusions of which clearly identify that the Sites are suitable for development.
We contend that Sherwood Nursery should be removed from the Strategic Wildlife Corridor designation for the reasons we have set out.
In its current form, we contend that the Draft Plan does not meet soundness tests insofar that it does not positively contribute to the achievement of sustainable development, and nor does it comply with the strategic policies of the area, by failing to provide a sufficient quantum of housing.