Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 - Main Modifications consultation

To make the Plan and Policy S1 sound, MM6 should be amended to:

- Provide for a firm commitment to an immediate and urgent local plan review. The supporting text to the policy and the Local Development Scheme (LDS) should also be amended to reflect this commitment.

- Specify in the Policy S1 the triggers that would be used for assessing when the Plan was underdelivering and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.

2.2 Modification MM6 states:

“Additional housing allocations, if required, will be made through the Site Allocation DPD (or review of the Local Plan).”

The commitment to bringing new sites forward either through DPD or Plan review is considered essential and is welcomed. However, this modification is considered vague, fails to provide certainty, is not positively prepared and effective. Consequentially, it is not considered sound.

2.3 The adopted plan was expected to take 5 years to review to address housing shortfalls. Disappointingly, this review process is still not complete some 10 years after adoption and MGH consider housing shortfall remains a serious issue for this plan. The emerging Plan will not deliver the full Local Housing Need and falls vastly short of the new LHN figure derived from the December 2024
Standard Method.

2.4 In light of this, it is considered that relying on a Site Allocations DPD or a review of the local plan to bring forward additional housing allocations at some
unspecified time in the future (if required) does not provide certainty on four counts:

i. Whether additional allocations will be needed in the plan period,
ii. How under-delivery would be assessed and what process would be used to addressed this.
iii. What the triggers would be for initiating the process to address the shortfall.
iv. What will determine whether a site allocations or local plan review will be used.

2.5 A site allocations route would be undertaken in the framework and constraints of a local plan that does not reflect the new directions set out in the December 2024
NPPF and the Labour Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes. This dated Local Plan would then constrain the allocations that could come forward,
especially if the decision to make additional allocations was made a number of years after the Plan was adopted. This would constrain delivery and could hold back a holistic and strategic review of the plan. Flexibility and speed would be compromised if reliance was placed on first bringing forward a SA DPD and then, at some time in the future, a local plan review was commenced.

2.6 This modification is not effective and is not seen as positive planning. It will not identify when housing shortfall triggers have been reached and will not enable that shortfall to be quickly addressed. Furthermore, it indicates a lack of commitment to bringing much needed new sites forward either through a DPD or a Plan review. As such, the modifications and the Policy are considered
unsound.

Requested change to MM

2.7 To make the Plan and Policy S1 sound, MM6 should be amended to:

- Provide for a firm commitment to an immediate and urgent local plan review. The supporting text to the policy and the Local Development Scheme (LDS) should also be amended to reflect this commitment.
- Specify in the Policy S1 the triggers that would be used for assessing when the Plan was underdelivering and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.

To make the Plan and Policy H1 sound, MM31 should be amended to:

- Include the table as policy and not as explanatory text;
- Provide for a firm commitment to an immediate and urgent local plan review. The supporting text to the policy and the Local Development Scheme (LDS) should also be amended to reflect this commitment.
- Specify in the Policy H1 the triggers that would be used for assessing when the Plan was underdelivering and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.

Why modification is considered unsound

3.2 The commitment to bringing new sites forward either through DPD or Plan review is considered essential. However, this modification is considered vague, fails to provide certainty, is not positively prepared and effective.
Consequentially, it is not considered sound.

3.3 The current adopted plan was expected to take 5 years to review to address housing shortfalls. Disappointingly, this review process is still not complete some 10 years after adoption and MGH consider housing shortfall remains a serious issue for this emerging plan. The 2021-2039 Plan will not deliver the full Local Housing Need and falls vastly short of the new LHN figure derived from the December 2024 Standard Method.

3.4 Furthermore, it is noted that the Council’s latest LDS (March 2025) indicates that the timetable for a review of the Local Plan will be set out once the new Plan system is in place. Given that Governments can take many years to get new planning approaches in place, it is considered essential that Chichester commit to an urgent and immediate review of the plan now.

3.5 In light of the above, it is considered that relying on a Site Allocations DPD or a review of the local plan to bring forward additional housing allocations at some unspecified time in the future (if required) does not provide certainty on four counts:
v. Whether additional allocations will be needed in the plan period,
vi. How under-delivery would be assessed and what process would be used to addressed this.
vii. What the triggers would be for initiating the process to address the shortfall.
viii. What will determine whether a site allocations or local plan review will be used.

3.6 A site allocations route would be undertaken in the framework and constraints of a local plan that does not reflect the new directions set out in the December 2024 NPPF and the Labour Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes. This dated Local Plan would then constrain the allocations that could come forward, especially if the decision to make additional allocations was made a number of years after the Plan was adopted. This would constrain delivery and could hold back a holistic and strategic review of the plan. Flexibility and speed would be compromised if reliance was placed on first bringing forward a SA DPD and then, at some time in the future, a local plan review was commenced.

3.7 This modification is not effective and is not seen as positive planning. It will not identify when housing shortfall triggers have been reached and will not enable that shortfall to be quickly addressed. Furthermore, it indicates a lack of commitment to bringing much needed new sites forward either through a DPD or a Plan review. As such, the modifications and the Policy are considered unsound.

3.8 Modification MM31 propose removing the supply table from the Policy and inserting a new Housing Supply table in the supporting text. It is suggested, that to be sound, the table should form part of the policy.

3.9 The new table reads as policy and states that the residual of 3,901 dwellings is to be partially to be met 3 separate sources – windfalls, sites allocated through Neighbourhood Plans and sites allocated through the Site Allocations DPD or a review of the local plan (whichever is sooner).

3.10 No timetable is given for delivering the Neighbourhood Plan allocations or those coming through DPD’s. There are no identified trigger points for initiating urgent action if delivery of the residual 3,901 dwellings is not forthcoming. The wording is vague, fails to provide certainty and lacks urgency and focus on ensuring delivery. It is also not clear whether this is supporting text or policy. As such the proposed modification is considered to not be effective or represent positive planning and is contrary to National Policy. As such, it is considered unsound.

Requested change to MM

3.11 To make the Plan and Policy H1 sound, MM31 should be amended to:

- Include the table as policy and not as explanatory text;
- Provide for a firm commitment to an immediate and urgent local plan review. The supporting text to the policy and the Local Development Scheme (LDS) should also be amended to reflect this commitment.
- Specify in the Policy H1 the triggers that would be used for assessing when the Plan was underdelivering and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.

To make the Plan and Policy H2 sound, MM32 should be amended to:

- Provide for a firm commitment to an immediate and urgent local plan review. The supporting text to the policy and the Local Development Scheme (LDS) should also be amended to reflect this commitment.
- Specify in the Policy H2 the triggers that would be used for assessing when neighbourhood planning was underdelivering and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.
-Amend the Policy to allow for minor amendments to housing numbers on strategic allocation sites which could be used during the development Management process.

Why modification is considered unsound

4.2 MM32 proposes to amend Policy H2 to allow for the possibility of using the forthcoming Site Allocations DPD or a review of the Local Plan to address delivery issues if Neighbourhood Plan work stalls.

4.3 As drafted MM32 is considered vague, fails to provide certainty and is not positively prepared or effective in dealing with neighbourhood plan underdelivery.
Consequentially, it is not considered sound.

4.4 The current adopted plan was expected to take 5 years to review to address housing shortfalls. Disappointingly, this review process is still not complete some 10 years after adoption and MGH consider housing shortfall remains a serious issue for this emerging plan. The 2021-2039 Plan will not deliver the full Local
Housing Need and falls vastly short of the new LHN figure derived from the December 2024 Standard Method.

4.5 The Council’s latest LDS (March 2025) indicates that the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD is expected to commence in 2026 with adoption in summer/autumn 2027. A timetable for a review of the Local Plan will be set out once the new Plan system is in place.

4.6 There are no specific triggers with timetables identified in the Policy for identifying neighbourhood plan under-delivery or robust mechanisms for addressing this type of under-delivery quickly. Furthermore, it is not how underdelivery occurring in the later parts of the plan will be addressed given the uncertainty over the timings of the SA DPD and Local plan review timetables.

4.7 As currently drafted, MM32 is considered weak, unable to achieve its delivery objectives and not considered to be robust or sound. The policy and supporting text should be amended to enable flexible amendments to housing numbers

4.8 It is noted that MM33 (relating to Non Strategic Parish Housing Requirements) is proposing to amend the supporting text to allow for minor amendments to
housing numbers. This flexibility should also be built into Policy H2 as an early mechanism to deal with neighbourhood plan under-delivery in the District. This
would be able to be implemented prior to either the production of a Site Allocations DPD or a Local Plan Review and would be a powerful mechanism to
maintain and add to housing delivery in the district.

Requested change to MM

4.9 To make the Plan and Policy H2 sound, MM32 should be amended to:

- Provide for a firm commitment to an immediate and urgent local plan review. The supporting text to the policy and the Local Development Scheme (LDS) should also be amended to reflect this commitment.
- Specify in the Policy H2 the triggers that would be used for assessing when neighbourhood planning was underdelivering and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.
- Amend the Policy to allow for minor amendments to housing numbers on strategic allocation sites which could be used during the development Management process.

To make the Plan and Policy H3 sound, MM33 should be amended to:
- Clarify the ability to flexibly adjust housing numbers relates to all Parishes, or just those listed in the table
- Specify in the Policy H3 the triggers that would be used for assessing when the Plan was underdelivering in terms of neighbourhood plans and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.

Why modification is considered unsound

5.2 MM33 is considered to be lacking clarity and fails to provide for housing delivery. As such it is not considered to be justified and effective.

5.3 MM33 has deleted a number of Parishes from the table and states that some flexibility may be allowed for minor amendments to housing numbers for individual Parishes. This flexibility is to be welcomed but it is not clear whether this relates to all Parishes within Chichester District, or to just those listed as having non-strategic housing requirements. Additionally, it is not clear what is
meant by “minor amendments”.

5.4 MM33 also amends Policy H3 to state that Parish housing allocation numbers set out in the table will be reduced by extant permissions granted since April 2021
for 5 dwellings or more in each Parish. There are 2 concerns with this amendment:
- It is not clear whether this restriction applies to all Parishes or just those remaining in the table after the strategic allocations have been removed. Given historic and future housing shortfalls and under-delivery, a precautionary and pro-active approach should be taken to both strategic and non-strategic Parish numbers.
- Extant permission are not always built out, or can take many years to be brought forward. Only schemes that have been completed and delivered since April 2021 should be considered in terms of the overall housing
requirement numbers. This would ensure that delivery across the District is not compromised.

Requested change to MM

5.5 To make the Plan and Policy H3 sound, MM33 should be amended to:
- Clarify the ability to flexibly adjust housing numbers relates to all Parishes, or just those listed in the table
- Specify in the Policy H3 the triggers that would be used for assessing when the Plan was underdelivering in terms of neighbourhood plans and the firm timetable and mechanisms for addressing this shortfall.

To make the Plan and Policy H11 sound, MM40 should be amended to:

- Clarify whether Gypsy & Traveller pitches on strategic sites applies to all strategic sites in excess of 200 units or just those in the southern area;
- Ensure that the explanatory text and policy are consistent;
- Deal with Gypsy & Traveller provision through a specific Traveller DPD.

Why modification is considered unsound

6.2 MM40 is unclear and appears to be adding additional burdens which are unjustified. Consequentially, it is not considered sound.

6.3 The explanatory text in MM40 proposes that the provision of pitches on strategic allocations should be considered from the outset (new para after para 5.66). This implies that all strategic allocations will be required to provide for Gypsy and Traveller pitches. However, MM40 also proposes that this requirement only relates to Southern plan areas. As currently drafted MM40 is confusing and unclear.

6.4 The additional burden of providing for pitches on strategic allocations is identified via a new paragraph in the supporting text, rather than through Policy 11. The status of this wording is therefore uncertain as to whether it carries the full force of policy or is guidance.

6.5 Furthermore, it is not clear whether this requirement relates to:
- all strategic allocations in the emerging plan, whether or not they contain specific wording relating to Traveller provision in the site specific requirements, or
- just new strategic allocations that may come through a Site Allocations DPD; or
- just allocations in the emerging plan that have references to Traveller provision in the site specific requirements plus any new strategic allocations coming through a SA DPD; or
- all strategic allocations in the emerging plan, whether or not they contain specific wording relating to Traveller provision in the site specific requirements plus any new strategic allocations coming through a SA DPD.

6.6 The requirement to provide traveller pitches on strategic sites is a significant additional burden and is considered unjustified. It is likely to also act as a brake on development for these sites, undermining delivery of both general and specialist housing.

Requested change to MM

6.7 To make the Plan and Policy H11 sound, MM40 should be amended to:

- Clarify whether Gypsy & Traveller pitches on strategic sites applies to all strategic sites in excess of 200 units or just those in the southern area;
- Ensure that the explanatory text and policy are consistent;
- Deal with Gypsy & Traveller provision through a specific Traveller DPD.

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

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

7.3 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...”

7.4 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.

7.5 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

7.6 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

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

8.3 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.

8.4 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

8.5 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)*"

To make the Plan and Policy A15 sound and restore flexibility, maintain housing delivery and enable good quality strategic placemaking, MM79 should be
amended as follows:

Policy A15 amended to the following:
- Land will be allocated for development in the revised Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan for (delete text - *approximately*) (add text - *a minimum*) of 220 dwellings (delete text - *(minus extant permissions for 5 dwellings or more within the parish since 1 April 2021)*) and supporting facilities and infrastructure.

- The Explanatory text amended to remove the reference to 32 units being permitted and thus only 188 remaining to be allocated.

Why modification is considered unsound

9.2 MM79 amends Policy A15 to reduce flexibility and add additional burdens. This will undermine delivery and is not considered justified or effective. As such it is considered unsound.

Loss of flexibility around Loxwood housing numbers

9.3 Loxwood is a strategic location that is important in helping to deliver housing requirements in an area of the district that is somewhat removed from the core areas along the South Coast. MM79 amends Policy A15 to specifically recognise Loxwood’s position as a strategic location but has taken an approach that limits
housing numbers in a way that will undermine delivery, removes flexibility and cannot be viewed as strategic.

9.4 MM 79 effectively caps development at Loxwood at 220 dwelling units in the Plan period. The previous flexibility to accommodate additional housing
requirements has been removed through the following mechanisms:

- Replacing “minimum” with “approximately” in the policy; and
-Subtracting extant permissions for 5 dwellings or more within the Parish since 1 April 2021. The Supporting text identifies that 32 units have already been permitted and thus a remaining 188 units are needed to meet the policy
requirement.

9.5 Both of these amendments, especially when combined, seek to limit development in this strategic location and take away the ability to respond
flexibility to changing situations in terms of need, site availability and other challenges and opportunities. Given historic and future housing shortfalls and under-delivery, a pro-active approach should be taken to ensure that
delivery is not compromised. Solidifying the Loxwood numbers to 188 units for the remainder of the plan period in an important strategic location is considered unambitious and short-sighted. Overall, the changes are not considered to be justified or to represent positive planning.

Reduction of numbers for extant permissions

9.6 MM79 amends Policy A15 to state that Parish housing allocation numbers set out in the table will be reduced by extant permissions granted since April 2021for 5 dwellings or more in each Parish.

9.7 Housing numbers should only be counted when schemes since April 2021 have been completed and delivered. Permissions can easily be delayed, or may
not come forward at all. Leaving aside the issue of needing to count delivery and not permissions, these figures represent a snapshot in time and will unjustifiably fossilise the allocation approach in Loxwood to a position and delivery of numbers that may not materialise. This would be unhelpful to the neighbourhood planning process, as well as to the Local Plan housing delivery.

Requested change to MM

9.8 To make the Plan and Policy A15 sound and restore flexibility, maintain housing delivery and enable good quality strategic placemaking, MM79 should be
amended as follows:

Policy A15 amended to the following:
- Land will be allocated for development in the revised Loxwood Neighbourhood Plan for (delete text - *approximately*) (add text - *a minimum*) of 220 dwellings (delete text - *(minus extant permissions for 5 dwellings or more within the parish since 1 April 2021)*) and supporting facilities and infrastructure.

- The Explanatory text amended to remove the reference to 32 units being permitted and thus only 188 remaining to be allocated.