Planning Obligations and Affordable Housing SPD

Object

Representation ID: 7194

Received: 20/03/2026

Respondent: Southern Planning Practice

Issues raised relate to timing of SPD in relation to timing of revised NPPF which may affect content,

and need for much greater flexibility to enable schemes to progress.

"Points noted. Concerning the NPPF consultation, we are aware this is running at the same time as the revision to the SPD, however the government has issued a deadline for SPD adoption which is not conducive to waiting to know the final outcomes of the NPPF consultation, and so we propose that these are more properly addressed through a future set of policies / guidance that will be prepared under the new plan-making system.

We remain keenly aware of the financial pressures on developments in the local area, and more widely across the country. The SPD sets out formal statutory guidance on how the infrastructure and affordable housing related policies of the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039 will be applied. The Local Plan and consequently this document have been informed by robust viability evidence which indicates that, in general, developments should be viable. The document sets out, in accordance with national policy, mechanisms for sites with viability issues to receive a degree of clemency to ensure they are deliverable while providing appropriate mitigation against infrastructure impacts."

Object

Representation ID: 7195

Received: 20/03/2026

Respondent: Southern Planning Practice

1.1 Last sentence refers to the Council considering the cumulative impact of planning obligations on development when considering any planning application – this section needs to be expanded upon and the methodology for this requires to be explicit in this document. It should include reference to the recognition that there may be site specific costs identified within a proposal that may affect the extent to which the application can also contribute towards the full range of planning obligations.

Points noted, however these matters are outside the scope of the SPD, which provides guidance on the implementation of infrastructure policies in the Chichester Local Plan 2021-2039.

Comment

Representation ID: 7196

Received: 20/03/2026

Respondent: Southern Planning Practice

Viability 3.6 onwards

The document refers to raising such matters at the pre-application stage, but in many instances viability issues only become clear during the application process and the text should be expanded to suggest that the issue should be discussed as soon as evident.

The text does not make clear the steps the Council will take on receiving a viability report and this should be made clear, so that the processes are clear and unambiguous.

Agree that it would be helpful to clarify that viability issues should be discussed at the time they are identified.

It is felt that the viability process falls outside the scope of this document, and that additional text to address this point would not be useful.

Object

Representation ID: 7197

Received: 20/03/2026

Respondent: Southern Planning Practice

4.73 onwards
Under the 2024 SPD, certain forms of development were stated to be unlikely to attract contributions towards the A27 including care homes and extra care facilities. These have not been specified in the draft replacement SPD and replaced with a general statement that there may be cases where contributions are unlikely to be sought. These exclusions should be carried forward for the same reasons that they were excluded in the 2024 SPD and therefore they should be specifically set out in the replacement SPD; it would provide greater certainty for applicants.

Agree that carrying forward the exclusions from the A27 SPD would provide useful additional clarification.

Object

Representation ID: 7198

Received: 20/03/2026

Respondent: Southern Planning Practice

Objection to the costs associated with providing educational facilities particularly where there is a policy requirement for an on site provision of a new educational facility under a site allocation policy.

Objection noted. The approach is a continuation and update of one taken in the 2016 SPD, and we do not expect developers to meet the full costs. The figures are provided as an indication of the likely costs of education infrastructure. Any financial contribution to be paid by a developer will be related in scale to the development that they are collected from, with care taken to ensure the development is viable.