Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 - Main Modifications consultation

We are pleased to see that the final sentence in paragraph 4.47 of Policy NE9 (Canals) has been removed, following our comments made at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345,17 March 2023).

NE propose criterion 1 is changed as follows: The sustainability of the site is enhanced by improving or creating any opportunities to access the site by walking, cycling and public transport, *and integrating these with good quality green infrastructure*.

We appreciate the addition of wording to criterion 3 of Policy NE10 requiring development in the countryside to avoid adverse impact upon Nature Recovery Networks.

We do however feel that criterion 1 could be further strengthened to make reference to green infrastructure, for example:

1)The sustainability of the site is enhanced by improving or creating any opportunities to access the site by walking, cycling and public transport, *and integrating these with good quality green infrastructure*.

1. Add Chichester Harbour Conservancy to para 4.66

2. Give the full names of the sites mentioned in para 4.64

We are pleased to see that our comments made at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) have been taken into consideration and additional wording has been added to paragraph 4.65 to acknowledge why so much saltmarsh has been lost at Chichester Harbour as well as a decline in over-wintering and breeding bird species.

With regard to Policy NE11 itself, we support the inclusion of text highlighting that undeveloped areas of low-lying land around the harbour are being prioritised for coastal habitat and natural process restoration which we originally requested be included in Policy NE12 (our ref. 420345). In addition, we are pleased to see that reference has been made to the 30 by 30 targets set out in the Environmental Improvement Plan 2023 within bullet point 1 of the Policy.

We note that no changes have been made to paragraph 4.66 and we therefore maintain our advice that reference should be made to the Chichester Harbour Conservancy as one of the partners we are working with and that, although some actions are outside of the scope of planning, many are related to development pressure and therefore the Plan can have significant influence.

In relation to paragraph 4.64, it is our opinion that the full, complete name of each designated site should be used (e.g. Chichester *and Langstone Harbour SPA/Ramsar site, Solent Maritime SAC and Chichester Harbour SSSI*) or alternatively, reference made to the actual name of the publication (Condition review of Chichester Harbour sites: intertidal, subtidal and bird features).

Expand policy in relation to replacement dwellings.

Additional requirement:*Wherever possible development should secure opportunities for the enhancement, creation and/or restoration of coastal and wetland habitats (guided by the Local Nature Recovery Strategy) and contribute to Biodiversity Net Gain*.

In our Regulation 19 comments (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) we asked for several amendments to be made to Policy NE12 and are pleased to see that these have been considered. We support the inclusion of a reference to the National Coastal Erosion Risk Management (NCERM) work in paragraph 4.76 and the following amendments made to the policy wording:

• The addition of Policy Requirement 2 to prevent further coastal squeeze of any coastal designated European site.
• Additional wording provided in Policy Requirement 7 to ensure small scale loss of intertidal habitat within the designated sites is compensated for.
• The addition of Policy Requirement 9 which requires new development to demonstrate consideration of future climate scenarios and their impacts.
• The addition of Policy Requirement 10 which ensures new development will not hinder coastal processes with regard to designated sites.
• Specification of loss of intertidal habitats under criterion b.

We appreciate the amendments made to policy paragraph 3 making it clear that new and replacement buildings should be setback in line with NCERM prediction, though we still maintain that it should be expanded further to prevent replacement dwellings where there is evidence of damage from the effect of wind/waves and where the replacement dwelling cannot be set back.

Finally, we reiterate our previous comments requesting an additional policy requirement be included stating:

*Wherever possible development should secure opportunities for the enhancement, creation and/or restoration of coastal and wetland habitats (guided by the Local Nature Recovery Strategy) and contribute to Biodiversity Net Gain.*

Reinstate reference to the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan

It is unclear to us why the reference to the Chichester Harbour AONB Management Plan has been removed from criterion 2 of Policy NE13, particularly as reference continues to be made to this document throughout the remainder of the policy. In our opinion, the reference should be reinstated to direct applicants to where they can find the special qualities of the National Landscape, to ensure they are robustly considered.

We are pleased to see that additional wording has been added to Policy Requirement 4 of Policy NE14 to highlight the potential for new development to contribute to nature recovery networks. We have no further comments to make on this modification.

Correct reference to Sussex North Water Resource Zone

Natural England supports the amendments made to Policy NE16 but wish to highlight a small error in paragraph 1 under the heading ‘Water Efficiency’ which refers to the Sussex North Water Resource Zone as ‘Water Resource Zone Sussex North’. We recommend this is corrected to prevent confusion.

Several references are made to the ‘Offsetting Implementation Scheme (OIS)’ within the supporting text which your authority may want to update to refer to the Sussex North Offsetting Water Strategy (SNOWS), given that this solution is so close to being operational. If appropriate, it would be helpful to include a link to the SNOWS website to further assist applicants.

• Additional text has been added to paragraph 4.113 outlining what is expected of applicants proposing to use a private supply borehole or other water source to service their development. While we are supportive of the wording, we recommend that it is specified that applicants may need to seek a permit from the Environment Agency to implement this strategy.

We are pleased to see that Policy Requirement 6 (previously 4) has been updated to reflect our comments made at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) and support the addition of Policy Requirement 2 which clearly outlines what is expected from a water neutrality statement.

While we are supportive of the main modifications made, we suggest the following additional amendments to the supporting text:

• Several references are made to the ‘Offsetting Implementation Scheme (OIS)’ within the supporting text which your authority may want to update to refer to the Sussex North Offsetting Water Strategy (SNOWS), given that this solution is so close to being operational. If appropriate, it would be helpful to include a link to the SNOWS website to further assist applicants.

• Additional text has been added to paragraph 4.113 outlining what is expected of applicants proposing to use a private supply borehole or other water source to service their development. While we are supportive of the wording, we recommend that it is specified that applicants may need to seek a permit from the Environment Agency to implement this strategy.

Seek additional wording to set out what is expected from applicants.

Seek reference to additional guidance documents.

We are pleased to see that our comments provided at Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) have been taken into consideration and reference has been made to Policy NE16 (Water Management and Water Quality), highlighting that other types of development can have an impact on water quality unrelated to nutrients from wastewater. In addition, we appreciate that explicit reference has been made to our Wetland Mitigation Framework given that this is integral to the design of effective treatment wetlands.

However, it is our opinion that additional wording could be added to supporting paragraph 4.121 to clearly outline what is expected from applicants when their proposal falls within the nutrient neutrality catchment (i.e. provision of a nutrient budget using the latest calculator and a nutrient mitigation strategy in line with relevant guidance) similar to what has been given under Policy NE17 (Policy Requirement 2) for water scarcity.

In addition, we continue to recommend that reference is also made to other key guidance documents including:
• Combining environmental payments
• Constructed wetlands for the treatment of pollution

We are pleased to see that the suggested wording proposed in our Regulation 19 (our ref. 420345, 17 March 2023) has been incorporated into Policy H11, making it clear that gypsy, traveller and travelling showpeople development is still required to comply with policies NE6 and NE7.