Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 - Main Modifications consultation

Main Modification MM13

Policy NE6 Chichester’s Internationally and European Designated Habitats

MM13 amends Policy NE6, but it fails to address the issues raised by KPC with regards to effectiveness and justification of policy specifications for the Mens SAC, Ebernoe Common SAC and Singleton & Cocking Tunnels SAC.

Clause e (previously d) remains as previously worded: “development proposals on greenfield sites and that support, or are in close proximity to, suitable commuting and foraging habitats (including mature vegetative linear features such as woodlands, hedgerows, riverine and wetland habitats) within the following ranges (as shown on the policies map) should have due regard to the possibility that barbastelle and Bechstein’s bats will be utilising the site.”

KPC questions why this policy specifies ‘greenfield’ sites. Is there an assumption that previously developed land/brownfield land cannot support commuting and foraging habitats?

The latest amendment to the Policies Map through modification reference PM2 is welcomed as it shows SAC Buffers. However, there are two issues that limit the effectiveness of this map:

1. The map is confusing insofar as it shows the orange hatched lines as Key conservation Area SAC Buffer, but also shows a semi-transparent orange hatched line area further to the northeast within the North East of the Plan Area. It is not clear whether the SAC covers the whole North East of the Plan Area or just part of it. This map should be better defined and clarified.

2. Additionally, the legend of the map shown on the Policies Map modification PM2 refers to SAC buffers, but it does not identify individual buffers according to each SAC site. This leads to ambiguity on which SAC’s buffer is applicable. The legend should identify individual buffer zones for each area of conservation: The Mens SAC, Ebernoe Common SAC and Singleton & Cocking Tunnels SAC.

MM13 introduces a new paragraph to Policy NE6 stating that the scale of the buffer will need to be determined on a case-by-case basis and be informed by surveys, which should consider the species’ sensitivity to disturbance/lighting and the natural screening provided by vegetation. While this sets out some criteria on the scale of buffers, it is yet insufficient to be effective, as the language used is sufficiently vague as to allow for other sensitivities of species not to be considered in the assessment, as they seem to be reduced to lighting and screening from lighting. Other sensitivities, such as noise, general activity, loss of habitat connectivity, etc., are not mentioned in the policy.

For the above reasons, KPC considers Policy NE6 (as amended by MM13 and PM2) to be unsound due to it not being effective and not justified.

Main Modification MM14

Policy NEXX The Mens SAC and Air Quality

KPC previously raised concerns about the treatment of The Mens SAC in the Local Plan, particularly the understatement of its proximity to Kirdford, the overreliance on unproven mitigation, and the assumption that neighbourhood plans would resolve air quality impacts.

MM14 introduces a new, strategic policy (Policy NEXX) which seeks to address atmospheric ammonia impacts on The Mens SAC through a monitor-and-manage approach. The policy sets a trigger point: if petrol and hybrid vehicle use on the A272 exceeds 14% of trips by 2039, additional housing in the North of the Plan Area must demonstrate no adverse in-combination ammonia effect or provide mitigation to secure that outcome. The HRA Addendum concludes that this modification results in no likely significant effect, noting the policy’s ability to enable future intervention based on traffic monitoring.

While MM14 improves the Local Plan by introducing a measurable framework for assessing air quality risk, KPC remains concerned about the limitations of the strategy. The policy focuses exclusively on vehicle emissions, without taking meaningful steps to promote modal shift toward walking, cycling, or public transport.

Moreover, the policy’s language introduces a degree of uncertainty and ambiguity. Phrases such as “likely to result in additional vehicle movements” and “likely to have an adverse effect” are open to interpretation and do not provide a clear, enforceable test for decision-makers or applicants. This vague language is problematic in the context of a Habitats site, where legal protection demands a high standard of certainty. Policies addressing protected sites must be precise and capable of implementation; as currently drafted, Policy NEXX leaves too much room for discretion.

MM14 strengthens the Local Plan, however, the policy remains limited in scope, overly reliant on monitoring and technological assumptions, and undermined by vague wording. While it can be considered sound, it would be significantly improved by including stronger commitments to active travel and removing ambiguous language that reduces its effectiveness.

It is also important to consider the revised approach under Policy H1, as set out in MM31, which replaces the earlier spatial distribution model with a stepped, time-based housing trajectory, setting delivery at 575 dwellings per annum to 2030, then rising to 701 dwellings per annum to 2039. This removes the earlier spatial apportionment of housing between the East-West Corridor, Manhood Peninsula, and the North of the Plan Area.

This shift introduces significant uncertainty about where future housing, especially that delivered through the Site Allocation DPD or by neighbourhood plans, will be located. For Kirdford Parish, which lies near The Mens SAC and along the A272 corridor, this has direct implications for air quality impacts. The previous policy structure gave a clearer indication of growth limits in the North; now, without spatial controls, there is a real risk that additional housing could be directed to rural areas like Kirdford, especially if other parts of the District underdeliver or face infrastructure constraints. This is especially relevant as Policy H2 already identifies Loxwood, close to the A272 and The Mens, as a strategic location where neighbourhood plans or a Site Allocation DPD/review of the Local Plan would identify development sites for 220 dwellings.

This matters because the new Policy NEXX, introduced through MM14 to protect The Mens SAC, hinges on a traffic-based monitoring threshold. If future development in the North increases traffic flows on the A272 beyond the modelled threshold, the policy requires mitigation or a demonstration of no adverse effect. However, by removing the spatial clarity in Policy H1, the Plan compromises its ability to control the geographic distribution of emissions, which in turn could undermine the assumptions behind Policy NEXX and the conclusions of the Habitats Regulations Assessment Addendum.

Furthermore, as KPC highlighted in the Regulation 19 Representations, rural parishes like Kirdford are highly car-dependent, with limited access to public transport or active travel infrastructure. Without mechanisms in the Local Plan to steer growth away from such areas, increased housing delivery—especially in the second half of the plan period—will likely mean more vehicle trips, contributing directly to ammonia emissions near The Mens SAC.

Considering the above, KPC is of the view that the new Policy NEXX, introduced through MM14, is not effective and, therefore, it is unsound.

Main Modification MM25

Policy NE17 Water Neutrality

MM25 makes substantial changes to Policy NE17, introducing clearer requirements for water-efficient design and offsetting, and formalising the need for a Water Neutrality Statement for all development within the Sussex North Water Resource Zone (WRZ). The policy now requires specific standards (e.g., 85 litres per person per day for residential development) and outlines procedural expectations for demonstrating offsetting, including use of a local Offsetting Implementation Scheme (OIS) or alternative supply arrangements.

While these changes improve the clarity and technical structure of the policy, KPC’s core concerns remain unresolved, particularly around enforceability, monitoring, and the assumed effectiveness of offsetting. As outlined in paragraphs 7.25–7.35 of KPC’s Regulation 19 Representations, the main issues include:

1. Unrealistic enforcement of personal water usage standards, which cannot be monitored or conditioned in practice;
2. Lack of clarity around how offsetting will be sustained and verified over time, especially if ownership or use of offsetting sites changes;
3. Uncertainty about alternative water supplies, their legality and their long-term impact on the WRZ;
4. No contingency plan if the OIS reaches capacity, which undermines the certainty of mitigation and thereby the deliverability of development;
5. A failure to acknowledge the severity of constraints in the North of the Plan Area, which includes Kirdford, despite these forming the core rationale for Policy NE17.

KPC has also highlighted a broader concern that allowing offsetting within the WRZ itself (MM25 still does) risks merely redistributing rather than eliminating demand pressure, thereby diluting the purpose of neutrality.

The HRA Addendum (March 2025) concludes that MM25 results in no likely significant effect, citing that the modification “adds clarity and detail” without changing the level of development. However, it does not engage with KPC’s deeper concerns about how mitigation will be enforced or proven effective over time, nor does it reassess the robustness of the OIS in relation to planned allocations in environmentally sensitive rural areas.

MM25 does not adequately address the soundness concerns raised by KPC. The policy’s reliance on offsetting and its assumptions around monitoring and deliverability remain unproven and insufficiently robust, especially in the context of highly constrained areas like Kirdford. Consequently, Policy NE17 is unsound.

Revise to reintroduce a transparent and evidence-based spatial housing strategy, supported by environmental constraints mapping and deliverability assessments for all parts of the District, including Kirdford.

Main Modification MM31

Policy H1 Housing Provision

MM31 replaces the previous version of Policy H1 with an updated housing provision strategy that introduces a stepped housing supply trajectory. The revised policy sets a requirement for a minimum of 11,484 dwellings over the plan period (2021–2039), delivered in two distinct phases: 575 dwellings per annum (dpa) from 2021/22 to 2029/30, and 701 dpa from 2030/31 to 2038/39. A new accompanying table sets out the anticipated sources of supply, including completions to date, extant permissions, windfalls, Neighbourhood Plan allocations, and future Site Allocation Development Plan Documents (DPDs).

This modification marks a clear shift in the structure of the policy—from a spatial distribution approach, which previously set targets for housing growth across different sub-areas, to a time-based or phased approach. That change in emphasis is significant and could have substantial implications for how the housing strategy will be implemented on the ground. Most notably, by removing spatial apportionment, MM31 obscures the planned quantum of growth in different parts of the District, including the North East of the Plan Area, which was previously identified as contributing a substantial, though disputed, share of new housing—approximately 1,800 dwellings. Whilst other policies identify the level of housing requirements for specific sites and areas, such as parishes with a Neighbourhood Plan housing requirement, the overall spatial approach has been removed from Policy H1.

For Kirdford Parish, the original spatial approach taken in Policy H1 was already the subject of concern. In the submission version of the Local Plan, housing distribution was broken down into broad spatial areas, with approximately 1,800 dwellings directed to the North of the Plan Area, including Kirdford. However, KPC strongly objected to this figure, asserting that it was not based on an open, evidence-led process but instead appeared to be the result of a top-down target designed to meet residual numbers. As the Parish Council stated in its representations, “CDC has sought to fulfil an artificial housing capacity/target of 1,800 dwellings rather than approaching this exercise with an open mind.”

This figure was not accompanied by any published spatial capacity analysis or environmental constraints testing specific to the North of the Plan Area. The Parish Council highlighted that much of the northern part of the District is environmentally constrained, falling within or adjacent to internationally protected habitats including The Mens SAC and Ebernoe Common SAC, and that these constraints were not being properly accounted for in the spatial distribution. The Council also noted that “the area contains significant areas of ancient woodland and is in close proximity to the South Downs National Park”, and that no strategic or deliverable sites had been identified through a robust process that respected these environmental limits.

Furthermore, the Parish Council raised concerns about the lack of infrastructure to support housing growth in the North, including limited access to sustainable transport, water and wastewater infrastructure, and strategic green infrastructure. In contrast to the East-West Corridor, which benefits from rail access and strategic road connections, the North of the Plan Area was described as an area where “the landscape and accessibility issues have been underestimated”, making it inherently unsuitable for the proposed residential growth.

Critically, the approach adopted by CDC in the submission version of Policy H1 relied on a selective use of the Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA), which the Parish Council described as unsound. The HELAA was not supported by a full ecological or constraints-led assessment, and appeared to be used primarily to backfill a predetermined housing figure, rather than as a tool to identify genuinely sustainable development options.

Therefore, the KPC’s objection to the spatial distribution in the original Policy H1 was not just about the numerical target, but about the flawed process and logic used to reach it. The Plan did not explain why this level of housing was appropriate for the North, how it would be delivered in practice, or what evidence supported the conclusion that rural settlements like Kirdford could accommodate significant growth. The spatial allocation to the North was seen as arbitrary, unsupported, and inconsistent with national policy, particularly the principles in the NPPF requiring that development be directed to sustainable locations, well-served by infrastructure, and capable of accommodating growth without adverse environmental effects.

Now, with MM31 removing the spatial breakdown altogether and adopting a time-based stepped trajectory, these unresolved issues are further obscured rather than addressed. The Parish Council’s view remains that a housing strategy without spatial clarity, environmental testing, or supporting infrastructure evidence—whether stepped or not—fails the tests of soundness and legal compliance.

The removal of spatial distribution in favour of a time-driven model strips away the ability to scrutinise whether the locations being relied upon for housing growth are environmentally appropriate, practically deliverable, and fairly distributed. The stepped trajectory may offer a more flexible framework for delivery in theory, but without spatial guidance or constraint-led phasing, it becomes impossible to ensure that housing is being delivered in the right places. The result is a policy that lacks clarity, accountability, and spatial coherence.

Furthermore, the policy remains legally non-compliant. While the SA Addendum offers partial coverage of the implications of MM31, there is still no clear evidence that the Council has met its obligations under the SEA Directive, the Habitats Regulations, or the Duty to Cooperate, particularly in relation to rural allocations and environmental impacts. Without site-level assessment or spatial clarity, there is no way to verify that the plan will avoid adverse effects on protected sites or support a legally compliant approach to water neutrality, air quality, or habitat fragmentation.

In conclusion, MM31 introduces a more numerically precise housing requirement and a defined annual trajectory, but these technical improvements do not correct the fundamental weaknesses in the spatial logic and environmental integrity of Policy H1. The Parish Council maintains that the policy is unsound and not legally compliant, and should be revised to reintroduce a transparent and evidence-based spatial housing strategy, supported by environmental constraints mapping and deliverability assessments for all parts of the District, including Kirdford.

Main Modification MM33

Policy H3 Non-Strategic Parish Housing Requirements 2021 – 2039

MM34 amendments do not address the specific and immediate concerns raised by KPC in relation to the soundness and clarity of Policy H3 as it applies during the current plan period.

KPC’s core objection to Policy H3, as expressed in its Regulation 19 Representations, relates to the lack of clarity, justification, and flexibility in the way parish-level housing numbers are defined and implemented, particularly the gross requirement of 50 dwellings allocated to Kirdford for the period 2021–2039. Although MM34 does not change Policy H3 housing numbers for Kirdford Parish, it reinforces the implementation model already in place: neighbourhood plans are expected to “make provision” for the housing numbers listed in the policy. If they do not, or fail to make progress, the District Council may intervene through the Site Allocation DPD or a plan review.

However, as KPC has raised in the past, there is a legally and practically distinct difference between making provision for housing and allocating sites for housing. As the Parish Council has rightly emphasised in paragraph 8.18 of its representations: “Making provision is not the same as making allocations. A made neighbourhood plan can make provision for housing by enabling development, for example through the drawing of a settlement boundary, or by expressing support for windfall development of a certain scale in policy.”

This distinction is critical, yet Policy H3 (including MM34) continues to use a policy wording stating that provision must take the form of specific site allocations, without acknowledging that other valid planning mechanisms exist within the scope of neighbourhood planning. This failure to clearly distinguish between the two creates legal ambiguity, which could lead to unjustified conclusions about whether a neighbourhood plan has fulfilled its obligations under Policy H3. For example, if a parish promotes a supportive policy for infill or small-scale development within a revised settlement boundary, thus enabling housing growth in line with local character and constraints, it may still be deemed non-compliant simply because it did not allocate sites. This would be inconsistent with both the autonomy of neighbourhood plans and with national policy encouraging proportionate, locally led planning.

In addition to the above issues, there are also significant landscape constraints that further demonstrate why the housing target of 50 dwellings for Kirdford is neither justified nor deliverable. As detailed in the Landscape Capacity Study (2019), three out of the four landscape sub-areas surrounding Kirdford (Areas 162, 163, and 165) were assessed as having a “low capacity for landscape change”, with the remaining sub-area (Area 164) identified as having only “medium” capacity. This landscape evidence highlights the limited potential for accommodating additional development without causing harm to the rural character and sensitive landscape features of the parish. Moreover, specific areas under consideration for development are subject to environmental and ecological sensitivities, including ancient woodlands, the setting of the South Downs National Park, and functionally linked habitats to the Ebernoe Common and The Mens SACs, which are critical for rare bat species. The issues regarding the impacts of new development to these SACs have also been raised in our Main Modifications Representations. These constraints have not been properly reflected in the allocation methodology of Policy H3 and have not been addressed by MM33, thereby leaving the proposed housing figure unsound from an environmental, landscape and planning perspective.

This continued disconnect between the landscape evidence and the spatial strategy followed in Policy H3 (as modified by MM33) reinforces KPC’s concern that the policy is not based on proportionate or appropriate evidence, contrary to the requirements of the NPPF for justified plan-making.

From the standpoint of soundness, the continued push for the use of housing allocations, and not other mechanisms available to Neighbourhood Plans, leads KPC to worry about the justification behind Policy H3. The site allocation path chosen by CDC for Policy H3 is not necessarily the most appropriate strategy when considered against the reasonable alternatives. KPC explained that there are other alternatives to make housing provision, and they do not necessarily require site allocations. The revised wording of Policy H3 is too prescriptive regarding how neighbourhood plans are expected to deliver housing figures. KPC considers this to not be effective and not justified, leading to Policy H3 being unsound.

Main Modification MM37

Policy H7 Rural and First Homes Exception Sites

MM37 amends Policy H7, primarily through the removal of the previously fixed cap of “up to 30 dwellings” on rural exception sites. KPC supports this change. As noted in our Regulation 19 Representations, the 30-dwelling limit appeared arbitrary and disproportionate when applied to smaller rural settlements. Its deletion allows the size of rural exception sites to be determined based on context, character, and local need. This change is a positive step towards making the policy more effective and better aligned with the principles of the NPPF.

However, MM37 does not address other concerns that continue to undermine the policy’s soundness. In particular, the requirement that exception sites be located “adjacent or as close as possible to the settlement boundary” remains overly ambiguous and potentially counterproductive. Many rural parishes—including Kirdford—have tightly drawn or outdated settlement boundaries, which limit the availability of suitable sites that strictly meet this adjacency test. Without a more nuanced, criteria-based approach that allows for edge-of-village development on well-integrated and sustainable sites, the policy risks blocking otherwise appropriate and locally supported schemes. On the other hand, the wording does not ensure that the optimal location of rural exception sites in terms of settlement function and pattern, in line with the principles of sustainable development. It is not possible to determine what is “adjacent” or “as close as possible to the settlement boundary”. This should be altered to state that it must “adjoin the settlement boundary”, which is an unambiguous term and in line with the spirit of the policy.

KPC also remains concerned about the continued lack of clarity in defining “local housing need” and “local connection”. While the modified policy references the Development Plan allocations, it fails to incorporate any clear criteria into the policy text itself to define ‘local need’. This weakens the transparency and enforceability of the policy. In the absence of clearly defined thresholds or procedures to determine “local need” and “local connection”, the policy may be inconsistently interpreted, which undermines its justification and overall soundness.

In summary, while MM37 improves Policy H7 by removing an unjustified cap on site size, further clarification is needed to ensure that the policy is effective, justified. Therefore, amendments do not go far enough, and the policy remains unsound.

Main Modification MM44

Policy P1 Design Principles

MM47 makes minor changes to the wording of Policy P1, including references to locally specific design codes, intending to promote high-quality design that respects local character. KPC supports the recognition of neighbourhood-specific design codes, although for clarity and completeness, the policy should explicitly reference neighbourhood plans, which often serve as the basis for design codes in rural areas such as Kirdford.

That said, we are disappointed that the policy does not go beyond what is already set out in national policy and guidance, particularly the National Design Guide and the National Model Design Code. The Local Plan misses an opportunity to provide stronger, locally-led design expectations that reflect the distinctive rural character and landscape setting of parishes like Kirdford.

In conclusion, while the policy is sound, it could be strengthened further by making clearer reference to the role of neighbourhood plans and embedding more ambitious local design expectations.

Main Modification MM47

Policy P9 The Historic Environment

MM47 introduces changes to Policy P9, notably improving the policy’s clarity and alignment with national policy by confirming the need to conserve and enhance both designated and non-designated heritage assets. However, as raised by KPC in its Regulation 19 Representations, the policy remains unsound in its effectiveness, particularly in relation to non-designated heritage assets.

The modified policy fails to explain how non-designated heritage assets will be identified, leaving the approach vague and ambiguous. As set out in the Planning Practice Guidance, there are multiple legitimate routes to identify non-designated heritage assets, such as local plans, neighbourhood plans, and conservation area appraisals, but these are not referenced in the policy wording itself. The Local Plan could use this policy to support specific methods for the identification of non-designated heritage assets.

MM47 removes the reference to “enhancement” of non-designated heritage assets, which, while not required by the NPPF, is disappointing. KPC supports a more ambitious, place-based approach to heritage that reflects the important role historic character plays in rural communities. The removal weakens the policy’s effectiveness and misses an opportunity to promote positive change through development.

To be sound, the policy should confirm that identification of non-designated assets will be carried out through clearly defined processes, including community-led mechanisms such as neighbourhood planning. It should also positively plan for the enhancement of non-designated heritage assets. Therefore, Policy P9, as modified, remains unsound.