Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 - Main Modifications consultation

Natural England is pleased to see that clarification has been provided in relation to the use of the term Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), as opposed to National Landscape, as this remains Chichester Harbour’s legally designated status.

We are pleased to see that our comments made at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) have been taken into consideration and reference has been made to ‘water scarcity’ within the Local Plan Vision.

Suggest additional wording in Objective 7 :*Highway improvement design should incorporate good quality green infrastructure where appropriate, to encourage pedestrian use*.’

We are pleased to see that our comments made at Regulation 19 stage (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) have been taken into consideration and the following additions have been made to the Plan objectives:

• The addition of ‘and/or water neutral’ to Objective 2 to provide context for the inclusion of policies NE16 and NE17.
• The inclusion of the phrase ‘incorporating the special qualities of designated landscapes where required’ in Objective 6 to recognise the importance of Chichester District’s protected landscapes.
• Reference under Objective 7 to the use of nature-based solutions where appropriate given the multifunctional benefits they can provide.

In addition, we support the inclusion of additional text prioritising active travel options within highways design (i.e. walking, cycling, public transport) but suggest that reference could be made here to green infrastructure provision as a method of encouraging their use as the ‘obvious option’, for example:

‘Highway improvements will be designed in line with the hierarchy for the road user with priority for people walking, cycling and using public transport, so that people choose active travel or active travel combined with public transport as the obvious way to access what they need. *Highway improvement design should incorporate good quality green infrastructure where appropriate, to encourage pedestrian use*.’

We strongly support the addition of wording to Policy NE1 requiring renewable energy schemes to demonstrate that there will be no significant impact upon views to and from the South Downs National Park and Chichester Harbour AONB, as well as meet Biodiversity Net Gain requirements.

‘Development proposals should *take account of* the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan, the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD and South Downs Partnership Management Plan and South Downs Local Plan *which are material planning considerations*.’

We are pleased to see that additional wording has been incorporated into Policy NE2 providing clarity around what is expected to be addressed within a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment (LVIA) (i.e. direct and indirect changes to the landscapes sensitivity, character and condition as well as visual amenity and visual receptors).

We do however feel that limited progress has been made on conveying thresholds which trigger the requirement for an LVIA. It is currently stated that an LVIA may be required for large-scale proposals as well as small-scale development within the setting of Chichester Harbour AONB or South Downs National Park, but no tangible thresholds given. It would be helpful if more direct guidance was given which considers the scale of development proposal and sensitivity of the landscape (e.g. all large-scale development within the protected landscape will require an LVIA).

In addition, we are concerned that the amendments made to policy requirement 5 may not comply with the enhanced landscape duty introduced by Section 245 (Protected Landscapes) of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act (2023). In our opinion, the removal of the wording ‘must comply with’ and ‘which are material planning considerations’ weakens the policy and we therefore ask that this sentence is amended to:

‘Development proposals should *take account of* the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan, the Chichester Harbour AONB Joint SPD and South Downs Partnership Management Plan and South Downs Local Plan *which are material planning considerations*.’

Once this amendment is made, we would be able to remove our objection to MM9 and would consider it sound/legally compliant. We have included some advice below on the enhanced duty, which your authority may find useful.

From December 2023 relevant authorities must now to seek to further the statutory purposes of the area. The duty applies to local planning authorities and other decision makers in preparing development plans, making planning decisions on development and infrastructure proposals, as well as to other public bodies and statutory undertakers in undertaking their functions.

The duty to ‘seek to further’ is an active duty, not a passive one. Any relevant authority should take appropriate, reasonable, and proportionate steps to explore how the statutory purposes of the Protected Landscape (National Park, the Broads, or a National Landscape (AONB) can be furthered.

The new duty underlines the protection given to Protected Landscapes in national planning policy. The relevant authority should consider how the design of plans or proposals could include measures to further the purposes of the designated area. Where reasonably practical and operationally feasible such measures could be embedded in the design or take the form of secondary mitigation.

Proposed measures to further the statutory purposes of a Protected Landscape should be appropriate, reasonable, and proportionate to the type and scale of the development, the implications for the area and should be effectively secured. A relevant authority should be able to demonstrate what measures can be taken to further the statutory purposes and should be able to provide evidence to support any decision.

If a relevant authority decides that it is not possible to further the purpose of the Protected Landscape, it should be able to justify the decision supported by evidence about why the purpose of the Protected Landscape cannot be furthered.

Natural England advice is that the proposed measures should align with and help to deliver the aims and objectives of the Protected Landscape’s management plan. The relevant Protected Landscape Authority, Conservation Board or Partnership can provide further advice on opportunities for this.

In December 2024, Defra released ‘Guidance for relevant authorities on seeking to further the purposes of Protected Landscapes’ which your authority may find helpful.

- Strengthen the requirement to *take account of* the protocol rather than ‘regard should be had’
- Refer to the emerging Local Nature Recovery Strategy in the final sentence.

We are pleased to see that reference has been added to the Draft Sussex Bat Special Area of Conservation Planning and Landscape Scale Enhancement Protocol (2018) within the supporting text (para. 4.17), following our comments at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023). We ask that your authority makes a slight amendment here to strengthen the requirement to *take account of* the protocol rather than ‘regard should be had’.

We also strongly support the additional paragraphs added following paragraph 4.18 which clearly communicate what is expected from applicants to ensure that any proposed development will not have an adverse impact on an identified Strategic Wildlife Corridor.

It is our opinion that the amendments made to the Policy wording of NE4, in conjunction with the new paragraphs included in the supporting text, has resulted in less ambiguity around what is and is not acceptable either within or in close proximity to a Strategic Wildlife Corridor. We do however reiterate our comments made at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345) that reference should be made to the emerging Local Nature Recovery Strategy in the final sentence.

Natural England welcomes the inclusion of Protected Species under criterion ‘e’ of Policy NE5, as well as the addition of explicit reference to the emerging Local Nature Recovery Strategy under criterion ‘1e’ as this is integral to the delivery of Biodiversity Net Gain.

We note that, despite our recommendations at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) that a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) be produced to address how BNG will be effectively delivered, no reference has been made to the production of a BNG specific SPD. We therefore encourage your authority to reference relevant biodiversity strategies and guidance documents which will assist applicants in identifying:

• What biodiversity is at risk locally and how BNG can restore this.
• Existing important biodiversity assets and their connectivity within the district (this may be provided by the LNRS, however is there an interim document?).
• Most and least favourable areas for off-site BNG to be delivered.
• How BNG could link up to strategic networks such as nature recovery networks and wildlife corridors.

Regarding the supporting text, we are pleased to see that reference has been added to the Solent Maritime Special Area of Conservation (SAC) though we highlight that reference still needs to be made to the Arun Valley Ramsar site in paragraph 4.27. We strongly support the inclusion of a third pressure (loss of intertidal habitat due to inappropriate coastal management) both within paragraph 4.28 and within the policy wording, where a requirement for avoidance or mitigation measures is clearly stated.

We acknowledge that Policy NE6 has been renamed to reflect the content of the policy, however we advise there is no need to include both internationally and European in the title as they effectively have the same meaning.

Natural England has been working with your authority with regard to air quality impacts (specifically ammonia (NH3)) upon The Mens Special Area of Conservation (SAC) since the issue was identified at Regulation 19. In an email dated 04 February 2025, we confirmed with your authority that we were satisfied that the proposed policy wording provided sufficient certainty that an adverse effect on integrity can be ruled out and note that this wording has not changed significantly since then. We are therefore supportive of this policy addition and will continue to work with your authority with regard to additional options for mitigation.

We are pleased to see that our comments made at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) have been taken into consideration and reference to the LNR Management Plan has been removed from the policy wording, given that it is not focused on mitigating recreational pressure. In addition, we support the removal of the reference to avoidance/mitigation measures and ruling out likely significant effect within the Pagham Harbour section as mitigation measures should not be considered at Stage 1: Screening.

We appreciate the addition of wording in paragraph 4.39 which makes clear that all development has the potential to impact land identified as functionally linked to the SPAs, as well as changes made to the supporting text to distinguish between recreational disturbance and loss/degradation of functionally linked land. We have no further comments to make on this policy.