Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 - Main Modifications consultation

Para. 1.31 of the Local Plan: In WSCC Regulation 19 ‘informal comments’, CDC were asked to update the reference to the Mineral and Waste Safeguarding Guidance (currently referred to as ‘Minerals Consultation Area guidance’) which has not been made. For accuracy this should be amended and included throughout the Plan where relevant.

Replace references to "petrol" with "ICE" (internal combustion engine).

New Policy (NExx) for The Mens SAC and Air Quality

MM14: This policy includes provisions for using “Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) monitoring on the A272 to determine the uptake of ultra-low emission vehicles (ULEVs) over time” to warn against possible adverse effects “in relation to atmospheric pollution specifically the levels of ammonia”. The text refers in three places to “petrol and hybrid vehicles” or “petrol and hybrid cars and vans”. This seems to exclude diesel vehicles which can also contribute to production of emissions containing ammonia as modern catalytic converters for diesel engines produce ammonia as by product of reducing NOX. On this basis the county council suggests that references to “petrol” should be replaced by “ICE” (Internal Combustion Engine) so that emissions from diesel and petrol vehicles are considered together.

To allow flexibility through master planning of the site and viable and deliverable options of infrastructure we suggest the modification is amended to read

12. Provide for improved sustainable travel options and new or improved cycle and pedestrian facilities (that could include public rights of way) to provide linkages with Chichester, Westhampnett, Tangmere and Oving, subject to feasibility

Policy A8 Land East of Chichester

MM73 – Para 10.35 2nd bullet reference refers to a requirement for land for a two-form entry primary school – this is not in line with the 3rd bullet point of the policy which also states the requirement for ‘early years/childcare and special educational needs and disability’. ‘Early years/childcare and special educational needs and disability’ should also be added to the text in the supporting text of the policy regarding land requirements.

Criterion 12. There has been no evidence of a requirement and feasibility work undertaken to determine what is achievable in terms of walking and cycling improvements as set out in Policy A8 Criterion 12. However, WSCC are supportive of improved active travel including walking and cycling links from Oving and Tangmere to Chichester. To allow flexibility through master planning of the site and viable and deliverable options of infrastructure we suggest the modification is amended to read:

*12. Provide for improved sustainable travel options and new or improved cycle and pedestrian facilities (that could include public rights of way) to provide linkages with Chichester, Westhampnett, Tangmere and Oving, subject to feasibility*

Policy A20 Land South of Bognor Road

MM83 – Criterion 12 - reference has been removed which refers to considering the safeguarding of minerals against Policy M9 of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan (or updated version). WSCC require this to be retained and considered as part of a planning application as it is an area of sharp sand and gravel.

Refer to the minerals safeguarding policy

Policy A21 Land East of Rolls-Royce

MM84 – Criterion 8 - The wording relating to Minerals and Waste Safeguarding Guidance is not consistent with other parts of the plan and only refers to the Guidance rather than the minerals safeguarding policy. Amendments should be made to refer to policy, as elsewhere in the plan.

Appendix F: Monitoring Framework

MM86: Chapter 8 Transport and accessibility - Policies: T1 and T2

The proposed amendment to the “Monitoring Indicators” column: “Travel patterns across Local Plan area/ forecasts of future transport needs” is vague while the reference to forecasting will require using consultants at some expense to update forecasts regularly through the Plan period. The county council suggests that indicators can be taken or adapted from those already used in the county council’s West Sussex Transport Plan (WSTP) Annual Monitoring Report which includes traffic and cycle count cordons in Chichester. Some further datasets which the WSTP considers at a county-wide level are also available at Chichester District Level. This includes the Sport England active lives survey, which sits alongside active travel in monitoring how many people integrate regular exercise into their weekly routine, although it covers a wider range of physical activity. Use of already existing indicators for which data is available could help to reduce the extent to which the district council may need to commission its own questionnaire surveys into residents’ regular travel choices.

To make the Plan and Policy E1 sound, MM56 should be amended to:

• Clarify the status of the table;
• Place the new table in Policy E1 and not in the explanatory text;
• Make the employment floorspace requirements for the Land South of Bognor Road in Policy E1 consistent with the minimum of 28,000 sqm found elsewhere in the plan.

MM56 - Policy E1 Meeting Employment Land Needs

Why modification is considered unsound

2.2 MM56 (especially when read with other policies and modifications in the emerging plan) is inconsistent, confusing and unjustified. Consequentially the amendments are considered to be unsound.

2.3 Modification MM56 has removed the table setting out how employment growth will be delivered around the District from the policy text and located it in supporting text. Spatial distribution of growth is an important component of strategic planning and it is disappointing to see it removed from policy. Unhelpfully, the new table in the supporting text is written as policy and thus creates a confusing situation in terms of the its status and the weight that will be given to it.

2.4 Furthermore, the table contains significant inconsistencies. The new supporting text table states that a residual requirement of 26,433 sqm will be provided at a new strategic allocation at Land South of Bognor Road. This is inconsistent with statements made elsewhere in the Plan about the amount of economic growth that will be accommodated in this allocation:

• Paragraph 7.7 - And a new allocation at: • Land south of Bognor Road (see Policy A20) a minimum of 28,000sqm

• Policy A20 – “A 19.5ha site is allocated for employment uses, to accommodate at least 28,000sqm of employment floorspace.

• Policy E1 former text – Land South of Bognor Road – 28,000 m2

Requested change to MM

2.5 To make the Plan and Policy E1 sound, MM56 should be amended to:

• Clarify the status of the table;
• Place the new table in Policy E1 and not in the explanatory text;
• Make the employment floorspace requirements for the Land South of Bognor Road in Policy E1 consistent with the minimum of 28,000 sqm found elsewhere in the plan.

To make the Plan and Policy NE4 sound, MM11 should be amended to:
• Provide clarity by including a clearly defined and limited geographic area where development proposals would need to assess impacts on the corridor and demonstrate no harm.
• Provide certainty and avoid unnecessary burdens on development.

Why modification is considered unsound

3.2 MM11 is considered unclear and has the potential to add significant burdens for developers. As currently drafted it is considered unjustified, onerous and unsound.

3.3 In the Submission Plan Policy NE4 seeks to manage development within and in close proximity to the Strategic Wildlife Corridors. MM 11 has removed reference to development “outside but in close proximity” to the corridors and instead states that “Development proposals will only be permitted where they can demonstrate they would not lead to an adverse effect...”

3.4 The proposed supporting text and policy wording and removal of the geographic context (“in close proximity”) has the consequential effect of expanding the impact of the Strategic Wildlife Corridor across the entire district. On this basis, all development in Chichester District will be required to assess the impact on the strategic wildlife corridors and demonstrate they will not lead to adverse effects even when they are very distant from them. This would be a significant, and in many cases unnecessary, added burden.

3.5 If the Council does intend for this policy to cover the entire Chichester District this should be clearly set out in the policy and the Validation Local List amended to reflect this.

Requested change to MM

3.6 To make the Plan and Policy NE4 sound, MM11 should be amended to:
• Provide clarity by including a clearly defined and limited geographic area where development proposals would need to assess impacts on the corridor and demonstrate no harm.
• Provide certainty and avoid unnecessary burdens on development.

To make the Plan and Policy NE15 sound, MM23 should be amended to clarify that NE15 does not require an 8m setback for fluvial water courses when in culverts. Policy text would then read:

Elsewhere, new development should be set back at least 8m from fluvial watercourses *(excluding when within culverts)*

Why modification is considered unsound

4.2 MM23 has the potential to add significant burdens for developers. As currently drafted it is considered unjustified, onerous and unsound.

4.3 The requirement to set back development 8m from fluvial watercourses when they are in culverts is considered unjustified and onerous. Such spaces can be accessed from the ends of the culverts for repairs and maintenance. In addition, it is not clear whether development needs to be set back 8m either side of the culvert giving a corridor of 16m.

4.4 Either 8m or 16m, this would be an excessive requirement with the potential to significantly reduce the developable area of a site to accommodate what is likely to be small watercourses passing through an underground structure. This has the potential to reduce site viability and add a significant burden, especially when considered in conjunction with other burdens potentially being introduced through these modifications.

Requested change to MM

4.5 To make the Plan and Policy NE15 sound, MM23 should be amended to clarify that NE15 does not require an 8m setback for fluvial water courses when in culverts. Policy text would then read:

Elsewhere, new development should be set back at least 8m from fluvial watercourses *(excluding when within culverts)*