Southbourne Allocation Development Plan Document Regulation 19 - Supporting Documents

To be sound, the DPD needs to be appropriately justified and based on a robust and accurate evidence base. There are a number of issues with the HRA as set out above and therefore it cannot be considered to be robust/accurate evidence. The Commissioners considers that if these (and other) issues in the evidence base were to be addressed, to allow for full and accurate consideration of the land to the west of Southbourne as a reasonable alternative to the land to the east, the land to the west would be identified to the preferred option/the appropriate strategy for suitable, feasible and deliverable development at Southbourne.

Pell Frischmann has been appointed by the Church Commissioners for England (“the Commissioners”) to provide ecology advice in relation to the Southbourne Development Plan Document (DPD), and particularly the assessment of site options through the Regulation 19 process at Southbourne, West Sussex. Pell Frischmann has reviewed the HRA, along with the DPD and Assessment Framework and prepared the enclosed Ecology Note. The purpose of the review is to consider whether the conclusions reached within the ecological evidence are appropriately evidenced and whether the approach adopted provides a robust basis for differentiating between sites (the land to the east and land to the west). It also considers whether any material ecological considerations arise which would support an alternative approach to site selection.

Please refer to the Ecology Note for the full response. As set out in the note, there are a number of elements where the Assessment Framework does not fully reflect the evidence base, including the HRA. The following comments specifically relate to the HRA.

In terms of Recreational Disturbance, the Assessment Framework appropriately identifies the potential for significant recreational disturbance from all Options, and that all are capable of delivering Suitable Alternative Natural Greenspace (SANG) to contribute to mitigating this effect. The HRA appropriately screens in recreational disturbance as a likely significant effect and undertakes an appropriate assessment to determine whether an adverse effect on integrity would occur. This includes a detailed consideration of the SANG area and design considerations included within the DPD and acknowledges that financial contributions in line with the Solent Recreation Mitigation Strategy would also be made (this contribution is not considered within the Assessment Framework). The conclusion of no adverse effect on integrity for recreational disturbance (with the application of mitigation) is sound (given the evidence available at this stage). As set out in the Assessment Framework, the Western Option is equally capable of mitigating recreational disturbance impacts and would apply the same approach to mitigation (the same SANG standards and financial contributions).

In relation to protecting and/or mitigating existing wildlife and biodiversity, the Assessment Framework appears to only consider impacts to the wader and brent goose network. This is an important consideration, however it is not the only one which should be taken into account when considering the impact of any Option on biodiversity.

With regard to waders and brent geese alone, the evaluation of the Western Option (makes a significant negative contribution to the objective) is overstated. Detailed information1 has been presented setting out the proposed approach to mitigation for the Western Option. This approach fully accords with the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy and is supported by Hampshire and Isle of Wight Wildlife Trust. It is also consistent with a long history of planning and appeal decisions resulting in the creation of mitigation areas for the loss of wader and brent goose network sites. Given the objective states ‘protect and/or mitigate’ the evaluation for the Western Option should be reasonable/neutral at worst.

For the Eastern Option, the Assessment Framework states only that the site is not part of the same Secondary Support Area. However, the HRA concludes that likely significant effects resulting from loss of functionally linked land cannot be ruled out because of the potential presence waders and/or brent geese. Thus, the potential for loss of functionally linked land requires Appropriate Assessment (in the same manner as the Eastern Option). The Appropriate Assessment identifies that waders which form part of the qualifying bird assemblage have been recorded on site, with peak counts of 18 lapwing and 2 snipe. This represents 0.75% of the Chichester Harbour lapwing population (20/21-24/25 WeBS 5-year mean) and 3.3% of the Chichester Harbour snipe population. The HRA goes on to conclude that there is no impact on integrity on the basis of these numbers (although it does not include the latest 5-year means) – however, the use of the peak counts alone is not a sound basis for this conclusion. Firstly, the survey data is taken from five surveys undertaken during a single winter. Surveys for this region should take place twice per month from October to March for a total of 12 surveys per winter and should cover multiple winters. Secondly, the presence of these birds would not result in the site having no value as functionally linked land. Under the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy, it would still qualify as a Low Use Site (there are currently insufficient numbers to exceed 1% of the assemblage at the time of designation of the SPA). The loss of a Low Use Site would still require mitigation in the same manner as the loss of a Secondary Support Area for the Western Option (the mitigation itself would simply be of a lower minimum standard).
Given the size of the site, it is likely that the Eastern Option could provide appropriate mitigation, however this should be evidenced. The proposed approach to mitigation should be set out within the DPD and must also be assessed within the HRA to make sure that it is capable of preventing a significant effect on the Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA. It is also important to note that any mitigation land provided for waders cannot also be used for SANG or other accessible public open space as it must be safeguarded from disturbance.
The Assessment Framework does not discuss the potential for impacts on functionally linked land for Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC. This is considered within the HRA however. As acknowledged within the HRA, the wider consultation zone for Singleton and Cocking Tunnels (within which significant impacts on flightlines and habitats should be considered) is 12km. The Western Option is outside this zone but the Eastern Option is not. The HRA screens out likely significant effects based on distance and the presence of the A27, however this is not sound. The Eastern Option is within the consultation zone, and therefore significant effects should be considered. If the A27 were considered a significant barrier (as the HRA suggests) then all land south of the A27 would be excluded from the consultation zone – however it is not. There are numerous sites south of the A27 where consideration of significant effects upon the SAC has been required by Chichester District Council (e.g. appeals for Land West of Drift Lane and Land East of Broad Road, Chidham – APP/L3815/W/22/3295004 and APP/L3815/W/22/3295000). There are records of Western barbastelle (qualifying species for the SAC) close to the Eastern Option (for example south of the railway line) and they are known to use the Ham Brook corridor. In order for the DPD to be sound, it should consider the potential for significant impacts upon the SAC and include appropriate avoidance and/or mitigation measures in line with the objective.

Overall, The HRA reaches sound conclusions during Stage 1 Screening and Stage 2 Appropriate Assessment for most impact pathways. However, as discussed above, there are areas where the conclusions are not sufficiently evidenced or justified.

The conclusion of the Appropriate Assessment that there is no adverse effect on the integrity of Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA through loss of functionally linked land (as a result of development of the Eastern Option) is based on low recorded bird numbers from an insufficient number of surveys. However, even with the peak counts recorded, an adverse effect on integrity cannot be ruled out for the Eastern Option without mitigation (based on the thresholds used within the Solent Wader and Brent Goose Strategy).

In a similar vein, the justification to screen out likely significant effects upon Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC is not robust. The Eastern Option lies within the wider consultation zone for the SAC and therefore should include measures to prevent significant impacts such as severance of connectivity.

Finally, although water pollution through nutrient impacts from wastewater is assessed, there is no consideration of water pollution impacts from surface water. This is an important consideration given that the Eastern Option lies adjacent to Ham Brook which flows directly into Chichester Harbour.

The issues identified should be clarified to ensure the Sustainability Appraisal is accurate and justified.

Paragraph 4.4.1 should recognise the potential for appropriate mitigation in terms of surface water flood risk in relation to the delivery of an all modes bridge for Option/Scenario 1. It states that Option 1 is particularly constrained, with no consideration of the potential for mitigation.

Paragraph 4.11.10 of the Sustainability Appraisal states that Option 1 is “ranked least favourably because it largely falls within the identified landscape gap between Southbourne and Hermitage”, with no further explanation. However, at paragraph 4.11.5 it is noted that all options including the land to the east fall within an identified landscape gap. There is not sufficient justification for this ranking.

The Assessment Framework and HRA cannot be considered to be accurate and proportionately evidenced, and do not allow fair and reasonable assessment of the land to the west in terms of the capacity to mitigate/protect existing wildlife and biodiversity, and the DPD therefore cannot be considered to be justified and sound. The identified issues in the evidence base need to be addressed.

A review of these documents has been undertaken by Pell Frischmann and is enclosed.

The Assessment Framework appropriately acknowledges and scores the land to the west ‘green’ in respect of the delivery of relevant sections of the Green Ring; creation of SANG to mitigate impact on the Chichester Harbour SPA; and preservation of wildlife corridors. However, in terms of the capacity to protect and/or mitigate existing wildlife and biodiversity, the land to the west is given a red ‘very poor’ score, with the land to the east as red ‘poor’. The main consideration in this is the loss of land which has been identified as Brent Geese Secondary Support area, identified as ‘significant’ (though with a potential area of mitigation north of the A27) for the west and ‘some’ for the east. The Commissioners considers that the ‘very poor’ assessment (makes a significant negative contribution to the objective) is overstated, given that the detailed information prepared by Pell Frischmann and provided in support of the DPD process to date makes clear that the proposed approach to mitigation fully accords with the Solent Waders and Brent Goose Strategy.

As further detailed in the appended note, it is considered that the Assessment Framework does not fully take into account the evidence base when assessing the relatively ability of each option to meet the ecological objectives. It fails to consider the Local Nature Recovery Strategy; and to acknowledge the potential for significant impacts from the land tot to the east on functionally linked land for both Chichester and Langston Harbours SPA and the Singleton and Cocking Tunnels. The Framework overstates the difference between the two options in terms of protection/mitigation of existing wildlife and biodiversity. There are a number of conclusions within the HRA that are not sufficiently evidenced or justified, including the justification for no adverse effect on integrity for Chichester and Langstone Harbours SPA (through loss of functionally linked land), no likely significant effect on Singleton and Cocking Tunnels SAC (through impacts to functionally linked land) and the absence of consideration of surface water impacts. Overall, the Assessment Framework and HRA cannot be considered to be accurate and proportionately evidenced, and do not allow fair and reasonable assessment of the land to the west in terms of the capacity to mitigate/protect existing wildlife and biodiversity, and the DPD therefore cannot be considered to be justified and sound.