Local Plan Review: Preferred Approach 2016-2035

Object

Representation ID: 3077

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Strongly objects to the weak policy commitment of the Local Plan to "not cause significant harm" to the natural environment, and "landscape and biodiversity is not unduly compromised."

The policy ensures there is no adverse impact, "on the openness of views....and the setting of the South Downs National Park."

Chichester Harbour AONB is designated as having equal landscape value and its setting should also be referenced here.

Comment

Representation ID: 3078

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

The Conservancy is unsure what is meant by "pollution" since it is not defined.

Comment

Representation ID: 3079

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

There is no reference to recreational disturbance. If the intention is to create new green spaces, this should be central to the policy.

Support

Representation ID: 3080

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

The principles of the wildlife corridors are sound. In short, joined-up habitats are better at preserving species diversity and allow species to disperse across the landscape.

The network of corridors presented are primarily on a North-South axis, and don't link to one another in the East West direction. There is also a lack of corridor penetration to the southern parts of the Bosham and Chidham peninsulas.

Comment

Representation ID: 3082

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Too often, matters of foul and surface water drainage are left reserved by a planning condition. For all major development the Policy should set this out as a requirement and be a local requirement for validating such planning applications.

Policy S31: Chichester Harbour is largely in unfavourable condition because of excess nitrates, and monitoring by Natural England show no trends of improvement. This policy should have a commitment to a nutrient neutral policy.

Also refer to Article 6(4) tests of Habitats Regulations for sites not recovering

Comment

Representation ID: 3085

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Add an extra point in part 1.

Page 92, 6.4, 6.5:
A few minor amendments to strengthen the wording.

Page 92, 6.3 Strategic Development:
A few minor amendments to strengthen the wording.

Comment

Representation ID: 3086

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

The context could be clearer - Map AL1, the Proposed Settlement Boundary, is just 200 metres from the AONB boundary. This should be stated in the accompanying text.

Object

Representation ID: 3087

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

* Major development on the fringe of the AONB.
* Loss of the buffer zone outside the AONB.
* Breach of current and emerging AONB Management Plan
* SSSI Interest Impact Risk Zone, which affects the SAC, SPA and Ramsar designations.
* Wildlife
* Flooding
* Chichester views
* Highest quality agricultural land
* Urbanisation
* Light, air, noise, and soil pollution.
* Wastewater
* Mitigation by public open space not necessary since AONB is a nationally important landscape already designated for the nation to enjoy.
* Increased RTAs
* Lack of support for link road

Object to link road

Object

Representation ID: 3088

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Object on the following grounds:

* Major development on the fringe of the AONB.
* Loss of the buffer zone outside the AONB.
* Breach of current and emerging AONB Management Plan
* SSSI Interest Impact Risk Zone, which affects the SAC, SPA and Ramsar designations.
* Wildlife
* Views
* Highest quality agricultural land
* Urbanisation
* Light, air, noise, and soil pollution.
* Wastewater
* Inadequate mitigation
* Contrary to the Spatial Vision
* Merging of settlements

Comment

Representation ID: 3089

Received: 06/02/2019

Respondent: Chichester Harbour Conservancy

Page 116, 6.62:
There is a factual error here: "Chichester Harbour is located to the south of the village, with its associated Ramsar, SPA, SAC and AONB designations."

Chichester Harbour is not "to the south of the village." The AONB boundary includes the part of Fishbourne up to the A259. This needs to be corrected.