1 Cabinet and Council's Public Question Times 11 March 2013

Cabinet and Council’s Public Question Times 11th March 2013

Questions (6) for Council only by Dr. Bateman submitted on 13 February 2013

1. How will the road system to the NW of the city cope with the increased traffic where it is already congested regularly in peak hours and regularly damaged with potholes due to the weight of traffic on a B road?

A. The Local Plan requires that development West of Chichester City (and in other locations) will be designed to minimise traffic generation and, where necessary, will provide or fund necessary mitigation measures such as access and junction improvements. Development proposals will be based on detailed assessment of the potential traffic impacts and will incorporate a coordinated travel plan aimed at ensuring that any impacts are minimised or avoided. The Council has been working closely with West Sussex County Council (the local transport authority) and the Highways Agency (responsible for the A27) to agree a co-ordinated package of transport measures to support planned development in and around Chichester. (Once this package has been agreed it will be included in the Local Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan.) Proposed measures will include targeted investment in local transport infrastructure, including improvements to the A27 junctions on the Chichester Bypass and at key pinch points in the City. Additional measures will focus on providing improved and better integrated bus and train services and improving pedestrian and cycling networks. Linked to this will be promotional measures to encourage use of alternatives to car travel, particularly for shorter trips in and around the City.

2. How will the local health services cope and what provision is being made to provide sufficient GP facilities for the increased population?

A. Liaison with health providers is on-going. Once housing numbers and locations are consulted on and agreed, the impact can be properly assessed and solutions worked up. This matter will be looked at in more detail through the Infrastructure Delivery Plan as the Local Plan develops.

3. What will be the effect on wildlife in an area adjoining the National Park where deer, buzzards, red kites and peregrines regularly feed? The loss of farmland will reduce the biodiversity and threaten the existence of the rarer top end predators.

A. Green Infrastructure will be provided as part of this development and it will be linked with the South Downs National Park via the existing Centurion Way. The Local Plan requires this development to be set within a substantial Country Park setting. The requirements include protecting and enhancing the setting of Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve.

4. The drainage and sewage infrastructure is unlikely to be able to cope with the increased population. How will this be mitigated?

A. The site is not within a flood risk area. Drainage issues would have to be satisfactorily dealt with as part of the scheme. At present it is intended that the sewage would be taken to an upgraded waste water treatment works at Tangmere.

5. The city of Chichester has already become increasingly congested over the last 20 years with population growth and a large swell in population can only make this worse and significantly affect the quality of life of those already living here. How will this effect be mitigated?

A. The strategic locations are planned to be mixed-use developments providing a range of everyday services and facilities to meet the needs of the new and existing local population. New development, if carefully master-planned, provides opportunities to enhance the quality of life, bringing new local facilities, public open spaces, improved public transport, cycling and pedestrian facilities etc.

6. There is already flooding with heavy rain in the centre of Chichester affecting the Ring Road. What will be done to prevent this causing increased disruption with the increased population?

A. The flooding issue on the A27 bypass is currently being addressed by the Highways Agency. Works started on 26th November 2012 from Portfield Roundabout to Fishbourne roundabout and is expected to be completed by the end February 2013. The flooding issue on the Ring Road will be taken up with WSCC.

Questions (3) from Ms Chloe Scholes submitted on 28 February 2013 at 20.17

7. Historic Impact/Tourism The scale and pace of proposed development will cause huge pressures on the fabric of historic Chichester and change the character dramatically. What measures are CDC proposing to meet the requirements of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF 2012) to "take account of roles and character of different areas" as well as "conserve heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance"?

A. The Local Plan has been prepared to be consistent with the National Planning Policy Framework. It has placed an emphasis on protecting and conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance and this theme runs throughout the Local Plan. Chichester District Council has also been supportive of, and has co-operated with, Chichester City Council’s consultants in undertaking a study commissioned specifically to look at this issue.

The Local Plan has been informed by an extensive evidence base to take account of the roles and character of different areas. This evidence includes:

 The Historic Environment Record;

 Extensive Urban Survey;  Intensive Urban Survey;  Conservation Areas;  Scheduled Ancient Monuments;  Listed Buildings;  Conservation Character Appraisals

In addition, specific studies were commissioned to inform the Local Plan including:

 Study of Landscape and Visual Amenity considerations which included identification of priority views to and from Chichester city; landscape character and setting; historic landscape character assessment; and historic landscape character assessment – time depth.  Chichester Harbour AONB Landscape Character Assessment;  Chichester District AONB Landscape Capacity Study;  Chichester Landscape Capacity Extension.

The Plan has taken account of the roles and character of different areas as well as conserving heritage assets in a manner appropriate to their significance throughout the Local Plan, from its “Portrait”, in particular paragraphs 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.30, 2.31, 2.32, to its “Vision for places” and its “Objectives”, particularly 3.23. Its “Strategy”, in paragraph 4.39, explains that to support the Local Plan the Council has undertaken a detailed assessment of the housing potential and capacity of individual parishes and settlements and in many of its policies, particularly those mentioned below:-

Policy 7 refers to Master-planning and that development should (in point 2) be designed to take account of and respect the character of the landscape, heritage, adjacent and nearby settlements and built development, reflecting the urban to rural transition and provide appropriate boundary treatment. Point 16 of the policy says that development should demonstrate a good understanding of the historic environment and its setting, both within the site and in the wider locality, whether designated or not and include details of how potential impacts on the historic environment will be managed.

Policy 9 refers to preserving and enhancing the historic environment including Conservation Areas, listed buildings, Historic Parks and Gardens and other heritage assets in accordance with Policy 47.

Policy 11 requires all development to have special regard to the City’s historic character and heritage and says that development proposals should be underpinned by historic characterisation assessments and make a positive contribution to the City’s unique character and distinctiveness.

Policy 47 is specifically related to heritage, and seeks to ensure that new development protects and enhances the special interest and settings of designated and undesignated heritage assets.

8. Employment. The planned expansion of Chichester will require significant increase in employment to meet the requirements for a sustainable development. Please confirm the number of additional jobs that will be created and the number required outside the area to support the increased Chichester population?

A. Based on the methodology used in the Employment Land Review Update (2013) prepared by GL Hearn, the level of housing development in the Chichester District as a whole (including the South Downs National Park) would generate a requirement for nearly 2,800 jobs, of which the proportion in the Local Plan area itself would be just over 2,250 jobs. This assumes that commuting patterns remain broadly similar to now. (It should be noted that the employment figures in the Local Plan also assume a reduction in unemployment to pre-recession levels.) Therefore, it is assumed that the District’s labour force will increase by around 3,200 – this is the figure given in Local Plan paragraph 4.24).

9. Employment. A report commissioned by Chichester District Council - GL Hearn (2013) – has concluded that the initial stages of the White House Farm (WHF) scheme (500-700 homes) are not well suited for inclusion of employment land. If access is not possible to the A27 due to constraints not being overcome, do CDC consider White House Farm satisfies sustainable development requirements with respect to employment?

A. Council officers consider that, from the perspective of sustainable development, it is desirable to seek to provide employment opportunities close to major areas of planned housing. We are, therefore, looking to allocate some employment land in conjunction with the West of Chichester strategic housing allocation. However, further work is needed to investigate the potential access and transport issues, including access to the A27. The Council is about to commission some further work to assess potential employment sites in more detail, which will feed into decisions on which sites would be most suitable to allocate in the Local Plan.

Questions (3) by Mr David Renton-Rose submitted on 28 February 2013 at 21.25

10. Eric Pickles (Local Communities Secretary) announced in February 2013 that the South East Plan is now being revoked. This removes the ‘top down’ targets set in the RSS and is a material consideration for new planning policy. Under what mandate does CDC now have the authority to impose the huge housing numbers (8165 homes over period 2006 – 2029) within the emerging Local Plan and how does this relate to proposals made by CDC on the proposed RSS housing targets prior to the South East Plan?

A. The consultation draft does not impose a figure of 8,165 homes. The total housing supply referred to in the consultation document is 6,973, comprising: existing commitments of 1,984 plus an allowance for small windfall sites of

664 and strategic allocations of 3,550 with the addition of 775 homes on Parish housing sites. The NPPF indicates that Strategic Housing Market Assessments (SHMAs) should be undertaken as the basis for assessing housing requirements across housing market areas. The assumed figure, of 470 homes/year for the District as a whole, would fall midway within the SHMA requirements based on migration trends and would be comparable, but slightly lower than, the previous South East Plan housing target for the District. 11. Will CDC now follow the lead from Mid Sussex Council who have immediately reverted to a target of 10600 homes rather than the 17100 target under the S E Plan which they have described as ‘more realistic’? (Note that a proportionate reduction by CDC would remove the need for the highly controversial strategic allocations which are mainly on green/farm land.

A. Mid Sussex District Council is seeking to encourage economic growth and it is for that District to ensure sufficient housing is provided to enable this.

If Chichester District Council was to assume an economic growth-led scenario, then a much higher figure of 750 homes per year would be required.

Our suggested figure of 395 homes per year is locally derived and not from the SEP. The figure is considered to be realistic and justifiable given our local constraints and potential land availability.

12. With the revocation of the S E Plan now in process, will CDC now adopt the Government’s required strategy of consulting with local residents (of Chichester) to develop a Local Plan that will deliver the homes, jobs and infrastructure we need (rather than demand-driven) and that Chichester can sensibly accommodate? A. That is precisely the purpose of this consultation, which itself builds upon earlier consultations.

Questions (2) by Mr J Michael Fort submitted on 28 February 2013 at 21.53

13.The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) encourages effective use of previously developed land as well as "contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment". How does CDC consider that development of agricultural land at White House Farm meets these requirements?

A. There is very little previously developed land available to accommodate the future development needs within the District, therefore greenfield land take is required. The NPPF states that:

“Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land. Where significant development is demonstrated to be necessary, local planning authorities should seek to use areas of poorer quality of land in preference to that of a higher quality.”

The majority of agricultural land at White House Farm is identified in the Natural England National Agricultural Land Classification maps as grade 3, and a smaller parcel of land in the southern part of the site (planned for phase 2), is agricultural land grade 2. The promoters of this site have been asked to undertake a more detailed assessment of the development site as part of their environmental assessment. There is very little land in the south of the district that is of lower agricultural grade than this.

Policy 2 of the Local Plan sets out the development strategy and settlement hierarchy. This focuses new development towards existing built up areas. In selecting the sites for inclusion in the Local Plan, wider sustainability issues have to be assessed and a high agricultural land grade would not be sufficient grounds in its own right to rule a site out.

14.The NPPF requires plans to "recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside and support rural communities". How does CDC consider that development of agricultural land at White House Farm meets this requirement as well as the need to provide "food security" through protecting productive farmland?

A. The Local Plan development strategy seeks to protect the wider open countryside from inappropriate development whilst recognising the needs of smaller rural communities. The balance between supporting rural communities and protecting the special character of the countryside is reinforced by Policy 45. The land at White House Farm is on the urban fringe of Chichester City and thus the wider sustainability issues have been weighed against protecting this land for farmland.

The land at White House Farm is not covered by a national or local landscape designation. Its historic earthwork features will be retained and protected in the redevelopment of the site, which will also include a substantial countryside park setting.

Questions (2) by Christian Heyman submitted on 1 March 2013 at 10.31

15. Delivery of Affordable Homes. The provision of Affordable Housing in Chichester is often cited as one justification for large scale development. Chichester City Parish overall Affordable Housing Need was 1436 in July 2012 (CDC Parish Housing Numbers Survey, Oct 2012), of which 637 were identified as Households in Priority Need. Adopting CDC's requirement for 40% affordable housing within the total for large scale developments, the total number of new homes in Chichester to meet Priority Need is 1593. With around 2000 homes already consented but not yet built (largely in Chichester), please confirm how many

additional homes are required to deliver High Priority Bands A, B, Medium to Low Priority Band C and Band D who comprise anyone wanting to come to Chichester (ref CDC's Choice Based Letting Allocations Policy).

A. The housing register is not used to justify the housing requirement or the target within the draft local plan. The Plan is informed by the SHMA which establishes a range of need and the appropriate tenures that should be sought. The Housing Register would be used to identify the appropriate mix of homes and to allocate housing at a much later stage. It is a snap-shot and is not a strategic tool.

16. Councillors Right to Vote. Many of the councillors voting to introduce the huge housing numbers in the South of Chichester District live outside Chichester or in the National Park, which is now protected from development and under a different planning regime from CDC. Only 1 member of the Cabinet lives in Chichester. Do CDC believe this is a fair representation to be responsible for the implementation of the devastating development proposals around Chichester?

A. District Councillors are elected to act in the interests of the District as a whole.

Questions by Mr & Mrs McNeill submitted on 1 March 2013 at 12.46

17. We have recently learned that the Appledram water treatment plant discharges straight into the Chichester Estuary untreated matter because it is working at over-capacity. If the works are at over-capacity now what will the effects be of 2000 more houses to be built on the above site?

Chichester is already over-populated with resultant congestion in every sphere of life, the above being the most important. Also: roads, schools, doctors' surgeries, hospitals.

A. Wastewater Treatment - The Wastewater Treatment Options Study for Chichester District in 2010 considered alternative options to increase wastewater capacity to accommodate future development needs. Following its recommendations, the preferred solution is to upgrade Tangmere WwTW to provide expanded capacity to accommodate an additional 3,000 homes. This would enable strategic growth in the south of the District. Work undertaken by the Wastewater Quality Group has demonstrated that an upgrade to the Tangmere WwTW sufficient to meet Local Plan development requirements is feasible and viable. However, the proposed upgrade is subject to Ofwat approval for the scheme through the Periodic Review in 2014. Assuming that Ofwat approval is secured, the Tangmere WwTW upgrade could be operational from 2019.

At the next stage, having established a clearer idea of housing numbers, we will be undertaking further work with infrastructure providers to identify specific requirements. The new regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy

also enable local communities to identify and secure infrastructure to meet their own aspirations.

B. The second issue is the one of building on prime agricultural land. How are we meant to feed ourselves in the future when the question of food importation and concurrent "anomalies" are at this very moment in the news? Isn't it time we thought beyond next month to the years ahead?

A. Please see response to Michael Fort on pages 5 & 6.

Questions (4) by Mr N A Shaw submitted on 1 March 2013 at approx. 13.00

C. Concentration on Chichester. Sustainability is cited as the reason for focussing development on Chichester. Given that much of Chichester’s infrastructure, transport and amenities are already close to capacity, please confirm what funded improvements have been committed to justify the planned rapid expansion as Sustainable Development?

A. The City offers the best and most accessible range of infrastructure, transport options and amenities. Transport - Developer contributions will be used to fund proposed improvements to the six junctions on the A27 Chichester Bypass, linked to further measures to reduce congestion and promote sustainable modes of travel in and around Chichester City. Phasing of development in and around the City will need to be coordinated in conjunction with delivery of these proposed transport improvements. Wastewater Treatment - The Wastewater Treatment Options Study for Chichester District in 2010 considered alternative options to increase wastewater capacity to accommodate future development needs. Following its recommendations, the preferred solution is to upgrade Tangmere WwTW to provide expanded capacity to accommodate an additional 3,000 homes. This would enable strategic growth in the south of the District. Work undertaken by the Wastewater Quality Group has demonstrated that an upgrade to the Tangmere WwTW, sufficient to meet Local Plan development requirements, is feasible and viable; however the proposed upgrade is subject to Ofwat approval for the scheme through the Periodic Review in 2014. Assuming that Ofwat approval is secured, the Tangmere WwTW upgrade could be operational from 2019. At the next stage, having established a clearer idea of housing numbers, we will be undertaking further work with infrastructure providers to identify specific requirements. The new regulations for the Community Infrastructure Levy also enable local communities to identify and secure infrastructure to meet their own aspirations. D. Parking. Chichester is already at capacity. Given that Chichester District Council have consented development over existing car parks such as at New Park Road, where will additional parking be provided? Who will pay to build and maintain new parking?

A. The Council does not consider that parking in the City is already at capacity. The Council regularly monitors spare capacity in its car parks located within the city and this evidence shows that there is regularly over 300 spare spaces within the public car parking stock on any given day – with a few exceptions such as at Christmas. This monitoring will continue.

E. Traffic Congestion. We understand that Chichester District Council have commissioned Jacobs to analyse the traffic impacts on Chichester from the proposed major expansion. What are the assumptions made for non-car travel and which roads and junctions will see an increase/decrease in traffic and congestion?

A. The Jacobs study is a work in progress at the moment. This work identifies the impact of traffic on the network and tests a variety of mitigation solutions. CDC, WSCC and the HA are confident that the progress made on the work to date is positive and that the solution proposed to mitigate the negative impacts of strategic housing sites on the network, including local roads and the A27, are deliverable.

Development proposals will be based on detailed assessment of the potential traffic impacts and will incorporate a coordinated travel plan aimed at ensuring that any impacts are minimised or avoided. The Council has been working closely with West Sussex County Council and the Highways Agency to devise a coordinated package of transport measures to support planned development in and around Chichester. Once this package has been agreed it will be included in the Local Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan. Proposed measures will include targeted investment in local transport infrastructure, including improvements to the A27 junctions on the Chichester Bypass and at key pinch points in the City. Additional measures will focus on providing improved and better integrated bus and train services, and improving pedestrian and cycling networks. Linked to this will be promotional measures to encourage use of alternative to car travel, particularly for shorter trips in and around the City.

Full details of the Transport Study assumptions and projected traffic impacts on different roads and junctions will be set out in the Transport Study final report, which will be available publicly within the next few weeks.

F. A27 Upgrade. At the time of preparing the South East Plan, on which the current housing targets are based, large scale development on the periphery of Chichester, and particularly to the West of Chichester, was not considered deliverable until significant improvements to the A27 had been carried out. These improvements included grade separated junctions at the Fishbourne and Bognor roundabouts with a current funding requirement of around £91m. It has recently been announced that Chichester District Council and West Sussex County Council have identified a total of only £20m to go towards the required improvements. Furthermore, £10m of this proposed funding relates to S106 contributions from future developers, so is unlikely to be forthcoming until development is underway or largely completed. Although

representations are being made to the Department of Transport for a commitment to fund the deficit, we are not aware of any confirmation that such funding will be available in the foreseeable future. Consequently, there is currently a huge deficit in funding for the highway infrastructure that is required to enable major components of the draft Local Plan. As such, the Plan is not deliverable in its current form and would require a significant reduction in housing numbers, especially to the West of Chichester, to comply with the strategy underpinning the South East Plan targets. Does Chichester District Council consider that the upgrade of the A27 is still a fundamental requirement for the delivery of the large scale peripheral developments to Chichester and, if not, what new information justifies this change of policy?

A. The work undertaken through the Chichester Transport Study 2013 has identified a potential package of measures, costing around £20 million, that would be sufficient to mitigate the direct traffic impacts resulting from the proposed housing and other development in the Local Plan. These transport measures will ensure that projected traffic levels are not worsened by the new development proposed in the Local Plan. This meets the requirements of Government planning policy set out in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which states that: “Development should only be prevented or refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe.”

It is intended that all, or most, of these measures would be funded directly through development, including from contributions collected through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Implementation of the highways and transport improvements will need to be phased in conjunction with development. The specific issues of implementation and phasing will be addressed through work on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan which is currently on-going. There may be a requirement for forward funding mechanisms to ensure that necessary highways improvements are provided in advance of new development.

The Council continues to believe that more substantial improvements to the A27 Chichester Bypass are urgently needed to address both current levels of traffic congestion and projected future traffic growth. We will continue to lobby central Government to prioritise improvements to the A27 at Chichester and will work with the Highways Agency and WSCC to identify short term measures to alleviate the worst traffic problems.

Questions (3) by Ms Judy Howland-Jackson submitted on 2 March 2013

G. Traffic Impact. An initial scheme of 500-700 homes has been promoted by Linden Homes either side of the B2178 (Old Broyle Road) accessed via a new roundabout. Linden’s consultants (Savell Bird & Axon) have indicated that such a scheme could be accommodated by minor alterations to the road network and would have a negligible impact on traffic on Old Broyle Road and the A27. Can CDC confirm the traffic

impacts of Whitehouse Farm, in the context of other planned development, given that it is of comparable scale to Graylingwell?

A. The Chichester Transport Study has assessed the traffic impacts of the West of Chichester proposal at specific levels of development, both in terms of Phase 1 only (500 homes accessed off Old Broyle Road) and Phase 1 and 2 together (up to 1,600 homes which is the maximum figure the promoters are proposing, accessed from both Old Broyle Road and Westgate). The Transport Study has indicated that it would be possible to mitigate the traffic impacts arising from these levels of housing, through the integrated package of transport measures funded by development as set out in the Local Plan, addressing both the A27 Bypass junctions and key routes and junctions in the City.

H. Access. To build out the White House Farm scheme (SHLAA indicates 2000 homes), requires access to Cathedral Way roundabout via Bishop Luffa school land, or some other means of connecting ultimately to the A27. Please confirm what agreements have been reached with Bishop Luffa or other land owners to facilitate this access route?

A. We understand that the development promoters have had some preliminary discussions regarding potential access. However, CDC has not been involved in these discussions and we are not aware that any agreements have been reached.

I. Access. Do Chichester District Council consider that providing an access route to White House farm via Bishop Luffa School’s land represents a safe solution, given the increased traffic, congestion and pollution, adjacent to a large school?

A. Neither CDC nor WSCC have so far given consideration to detailed access arrangements for the proposed development, although we are satisfied with the principle that a new access to Westgate should be provided. Detailed work looking at access arrangements will be undertaken at the development master-planning stage.

Question (1) by Mrs Karen S Swann submitted on 3 March 2013 at 16.05

J. Strategic Gap. Within the White House Farm (WHF) potential land allocation, the area between Newlands Lane and Fishbourne is protected under the designation of a Strategic Gap. These buffers have been created by Chichester District Council for good reason as they provide green corridors for migration of wildlife as well as maintain the identity of discrete urbanised areas.

Given the refusal to develop on the Strategic Gap between Summersdale and Lavant, can CDC confirm that the same protection will be afforded to this valuable buffer at Whitehouse Farm?

A. The area identified at White House farm has been identified as a strategic development opportunity for our district. It has been promoted as an extension to our city. The strategic gap concept is replaced by the concept of maintaining the individual identity of settlements, whether actual or perceived as set out in Policy 48. The master-plan for the west of Chichester Strategic location would have to provide Green Infrastructure as required in Policy 51 to ensure that coalescence would not take place with Fishbourne. There will be a 30 meter green buffer being maintained along the western boundary of the site. In addition to the country park there will be an extension to Brandy Hole Copse, a town park and allotments. Phase 1 of the proposal will see a 22.5 hectare country park development with phase 2 delivering a 36 hectare country park.

Question (1) by Dr Ian D Swann submitted on 3 March 2013 at 16.05

K. Surface Water. Although not in a designated high risk flood zone, parts of Whitehouse Farm are very wet and unsuitable for development. How will these drainage problems be overcome given the increased run off from hard cover arising from large scale development of agricultural land?

A. Drainage issues are addressed within Policy 43 of the draft Local Plan. This policy has been put in place to ensure that flood and erosion risks are taken into account at all stages of the planning process. This will avoid inappropriate development in areas at current or future risk of flood or erosion and will direct development away from areas of highest risk.

Questions (4) by Ms Paula Chatfield submitted on 4 March 2013 at 11.20

L. Please explain why CDC has declined to send an officer to attend the AGM of Parklands Residents' Association on 23rd March to explain to residents what's in the Local Plan, why and what this means for Parklands.

N.B. The Parklands area in Chichester is one of the most significantly affected by the strategic development proposals and CDC has obviously spent a considerable amount of time working with developers (but not with residents) to include the West of Chichester Strategic Development site (the largest in the plan) since officers deemed it an unsuitable location in the last public consultation in summer 2011 (less than 2 years ago). Amongst other aspirations of the draft Local Plan, its Vision is explicitly of "a place where people" ... "Feel a sense of community, and feel able and willing to help shape its future." (page 20).

A. Within the constraints of our limited resources, our aim is to reach a broad spectrum of the community having particular regard to the principles of equality and diversity. With this in mind we have identified a wide range of community events spread across the whole area to provide equal access for all. We are happy for anyone to attend these events, at which members of staff will be on hand to deal with queries and provide advice about the

consultation. Unfortunately, we are unable to resource individual requests to attend meetings.

We tasked the promoters with a range of issues to address in order to test the suitability of the strategic sites. A Strategic Developers’ Forum was established in November 2012 which has only met on two occasions.

M. What reform is proposed for electoral wards (boundaries, Councillors per ward, etc) to reflect the growth and increasing concentration of population in and immediately around Chichester that is proposed in the draft Local Plan?

N.B. It already appears that Chichester City Council is too big to function as effectively as other, village, parish councils, e.g. its decision to date not to prepare a Neighbourhood Plan.

A. A Parish Council or group of residents may request their Local Authority to carry out a review of the Parish boundary; or a Local Authority can submit a request to the Boundary Commission for a review of the District if it is felt necessary for this to be carried out.

N. What increase in the size (in terms of homes and population) of the city of Chichester will result from the Plan’s proposals (including the strategic allocations at Westhampnett and Shopwhyke, as well as "West of Chichester city" at Whitehouse Farm)? How does this compare with the increase between 2001 and 2011? What impact will this scale of development have on the City’s character?

A. The Strategic allocations at West of Chichester and Shopwyke are considered as extensions to Chichester City, whilst the Westhampnett Strategic location is considered as an extension to the existing village (not as an extension to Chichester City). This is explained further below.

The Draft Local Plan – Preferred Approach – proposes two strategic land allocations as urban extensions to Chichester City over the period 2012 to 2029. Policy 17 proposes approximately 500 homes as part of mixed use development at Shopwkye. Policy 16 proposes up to 1,000 homes as part of mixed-use development at West of Chichester during the life of the Plan.

In addition, Policy 5 requires that 150 homes will be identified on small scale housing sites within the City.

Therefore, for Chichester City, the additional housing allocation proposed in the Draft Local Plan in the period 2012 to 2029 is 1,650 homes.

Information from the 2001 and 2011 Census shows that between 2001 and 2011 the population of Chichester City increased by 3,064, from 23,731 to 26,795. Over the same period, the number of homes in the city increased by, 1,610, from 11,315 to 12,925. This equates to an average household size of 1.9.

The increase in population that will result from the Local Plan proposals will depend on a number of factors that will influence the household size of the occupants of the new homes built, including the age profile of the new residents. Based on an average household size of 1.9, the additional allocations we are consulting on would result in a population increase of 3,140 during the life of the Plan.

The conservation and enhancement of the natural environment and heritage assets is a theme that runs through the Plan. The consultation draft suggests that the Council should work with the City Council to develop an Area Action Plan for the City which will help to address impacts on the City itself. I would refer back to the full response to Ms Scholes’ question in this regard.

Please also see the response to Dr. Bateman’s question 1 on page 1.

O. What is the case that has convinced CDC officers (and ultimately, if they accept the officers’ draft Plan, CDC’s Cabinet and Council) that traffic flows to/from the proposed “West of Chichester city Strategic Development” at Whitehouse Farm (at all stages of the development, including construction) will not be detrimental to existing Chichester communities? Where is traffic expected to go, in what volume and what off-site “mitigation” works are envisaged?

A. Please see the responses to questions 19 & 21 submitted by Mr N.A. Shaw on pages 8 and 9.

Questions (3) by Mr N Shaw submitted on 4 March 2013 at 16.35

P. Re-insertion of Whitehouse Farm as a Strategic Site in 2012. White House Farm was not included in 2011 Public Consultation on the emerging Local Plan. Do CDC believe that the re-insertion of this site by CDC in October 2012 meets their obligations to seek the public's views on potential sites prior to preparing the Draft Local Plan?

A. The preparation of the consultation draft has been an iterative process spanning a period of more than 3 years and involving extensive and exhaustive consultation and evidence gathering. This consultation is a further opportunity for the public to provide their views on the content of the draft Local Plan.

Q. Strategic Sites. At the last Consultation in 2011, White House Farm was excluded due to constraints posed by lack of sewage treatment capacity locally, negative impact on highway network and environmental impacts on the Designated (legally protected) Chichester Harbour. What new information or fully funded proposals have been committed to justify the re-introduction of this site?

A. The inclusion of the land West of Chichester in the Local Plan is due to the Council now being satisfied that the constraints listed above can potentially be overcome. This assessment is based on additional evidence from studies undertaken by the Council and other relevant stakeholders, and information requested from the promoters themselves.

Wastewater treatment issues - The most critical impacts on the proposed development West of Chichester relate to the issue of wastewater treatment capacity. There is no potential to expand capacity at Apuldram WwTW and in addition the Environment Agency has advised that its existing wastewater headroom should not be used until a solution is found to the issue of groundwater infiltration.

Following the Wastewater Treatment Options Study for Chichester District in 2010, the Council working with its partners in the Chichester Water Quality Group (Environment Agency, Southern Water, Natural England and Chichester Harbour Conservancy) concluded that in order to facilitate additional wastewater capacity to support the Local Plan, the preferred solution should be to upgrade Tangmere WwTW, providing expanded headroom to accommodate an additional 3,000 homes. The proposed upgrade is subject to Ofwat approval for the scheme through the Periodic Review in 2014. If funding is approved, it could potentially be operational from 2019.

For West of Chichester to be considered a suitable option, in principle, the Council needed to be satisfied that the development could provide the necessary wastewater connection from the site linking to the expanded Tangmere WwTW. At this stage, Southern Water and the promoters have indicated that such a connection is technically feasible and that the cost of providing the connection would be financially viable for the development. As we take the Plan forward through the next stages we will be required to provide more detailed evidence to demonstrate deliverability.

Impacts on the highways network – The potential traffic impacts likely to result from development West of Chichester have been assessed through the Chichester Transport Study. Through joint working between the Council, WSCC, the Highways Agency and the site promoters, a package of measures has been identified that will address the traffic impacts arising from the new housing development and thereby meet the requirements of national planning policy guidance. Issues relating to Fishbourne roundabout were resolved as part of the overall mitigation measures to counteract the negative impact of any strategic site developments, by the research and development of a comprehensive mitigation package along the entirety of the A27, from Fishbourne roundabout to the Portfield roundabout. Developer contributions will be used to fund alterations to the six junctions on the A27 Chichester Bypass, linked to further measures to reduce congestion and promote sustainable modes of travel in and around Chichester city. Phasing of development in and around the City will need to be co-ordinated in

conjunction with delivery of these transport mitigation measures. The full report of the Chichester Transport Study will be published shortly.

Environmental impacts on Chichester Harbour – A further issue for West of Chichester is its relative proximity to Chichester Harbour and the potential increase in recreational disturbance to birds which could result from the proposed development. Natural England has indicated (through representations and informal discussions with the Council) that they would oppose significant new development within 1km of Chichester Harbour, since this is the area where substantial numbers of residents would be likely to access the Harbour on foot. However, in their specific representations regarding West of Chichester, they have indicated that the development is likely to be outside the 1km zone. Therefore, there is no basis at this stage for assuming that the environmental impact of development West of Chichester on the Harbour could not be satisfactorily mitigated and this will be subject to an Appropriate Assessment at a later stage.

R. Sewage. It is suggested that developers promoting White House Farm (WHF) are proposing to pay for a new foul sewer that links to a possible upgraded STW at Tangmere, around 5 miles away. Who will pay for the construction, operation and maintenance of the sewer and do CDC consider that this represents a sustainable solution for the WHF site?

A. For West of Chichester to be considered a suitable option, in principle, the Council needed to be satisfied that the development could provide the necessary wastewater connection from the site linking to the expanded Tangmere WwTW. At this stage, Southern Water and the promoters have indicated that such a connection is technically feasible and that the cost of providing the connection would be financially viable for the development. As we take the Plan forward through the next stages we will be required to do further testing and provide more detailed evidence to demonstrate deliverability.

In response to a specific request from the Council, the promoters commissioned consultants to review the factors affecting foul sewage capacity in Chichester and to outline how a proposed strategic development at White House Farm would be served. Based on this work, the consultants have put forward an indicative route around the north of the City which would link the site to Tangmere WwTW. This would involve two pumping stations, one within the site and another to the East of Chichester.

The route and construction of the transfer would be determined by Southern Water through the requisition process defined within Section 98 of the Water Industry Act 1991. The transfer route would be fully funded by development, either unilaterally or in conjunction with other development sites likely to benefit.

Questions (3) by Mr C G Lindsay submitted on 5 March 2013 at 17.50

S. Section 12 of the draft Plan refers to the need protect and enhance Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve (BHCLNR). Clearly a massive housing development west of Centurion Way and both north and south of Old Broyle Road has the potential for considerable damage to the Reserve.

35(a) What studies have been undertaken to determine the protection that the BHCLNR requires to meet the requirements of Policy 16?

A. Studies undertaken include a phase 1 Habitat Survey included in The Future Growth of Chichester: Landscape and Visual Amenity Consideration Study by LUC, in April 2005 and the Revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for West Sussex, January 2010. The latter study was undertaken to assist planners in making decisions about development to ensure that the effects of any development proposals on ancient woodlands can be properly assessed and considered. Brandy Hole Copse is a Local Nature Reserve, designated in 2001 and a revised Brandy Hole Copse Management Plan 2008-2013 is in place. Any development proposals would have to ensure that the Management Plan and its objectives are adhered to.

Policy 7 requires strategic locations to be master-planned and requires development to take account of and respect the character of the area.

Policy 49 requires the biodiversity value of the site to be fully safeguarded.

Green Infrastructure will be provided as part of this development and it will be linked with the South Downs National Park via the existing Centurion Way. The Local Plan requires this development to be set within a substantial Country Park setting. The requirements include protecting and enhancing the setting of Brandy Hole Copse Local Nature Reserve. This is likely to include an extension to Brandy Hole Copse in order to reduce recreational pressure on the original woodland.

35(b) What proposals have the Developers (or their Agents) put to you that you that the BHCLNR can be suitably protected and enhanced while still permitting 1600 houses and a large number of other buildings to be constructed on the White House Farm site?

A. The White House Farm site is identified as having potential to provide 1000 homes during the Plan period. The site promoters were advised by specialist consultants in respect of environmental and landscape issues. The promoters have provided us with some very draft indicative master- plans, which show the development set within an extensive countryside park, including an extension to Brandy Hole Copse. However, any final master-plan would have to be drawn up in close liaison with both the local

community and with Chichester District Council. Natural England would also be closely involved with this work.

36(a) One of the questions contained in the Housing Numbers and Locations Consultation document was “What housing target should be set” for the South of the District. The options given were 305, 330, 355 (the SE Plan derived figure), 380 and 415 houses per year. 71% of those who responded to this question opted for 305. Less than 10% opted for more than 355. The proposal now before the Council for the South of the District is 375 houses pa. What is the point of having Local Plan consultations if the Council are going to dismiss the responses so flagrantly?

A. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) was published after the Housing Numbers and Locations Consultation and this introduced changes to the planning system. The NPPF accords with central government’s growth agenda and requires Local Plans to meet the full, objectively assessed needs for market and affordable housing in the housing market area, as far as is consistent with the policies within the NPPF. The Local Plan has to be based on a robust and credible evidence base in order to be deemed sound at independent examination. The purpose of the consultation was to give everyone a chance to comment and to ensure that we understood the main constraints to development in order to take these into account when assessing our housing requirement target. We are consulting on a requirement of 395 homes per year which we believe will meet the tests of soundness at examination.

36(b) What are the 10 most significant changes that have been made as a result of residents’ responses to the last 3 Local Plan Consultations (in 2009, 2011 and 2012)?

A. Key changes that have been made in response to concerns raised in earlier consultations include:

 A package of transport measures have been identified to mitigate the impact of the level of development proposed through the Local Plan.  Strategic Waste water solutions have been identified.  We have undertaken more robust and more up to date studies to set out a locally derived housing requirement in accordance with the National Planning Policy Framework.  The housing numbers on the Manhood Peninsula and at the strategic location at Westhampnett have been reduced.  We have identified the Settlement Hubs of Southbourne, East Wittering/Bracklesham and Selsey as strategic locations.  The Plan recognised the role of local communities and seeks to work with them through the neighbourhood planning process.

 We have undertaken further consultation with the Parish Councils and Chichester City Council on Parish Housing Numbers.  We are undertaking work with both the County Council and Water Company to address surface water flood risk.

37. 75% of the District falls within the South Downs National Park and the Chichester Harbour AONB where, inevitably, house building will be very restricted (as evidenced by the draft Local Plan). Of the remaining 25%, the rest of the Manhood area is also going to have to be excluded from significant house building for the foreseeable future because of flooding and access problems. This just leaves the East West Corridor available for any significant development in the decades after 2029.

37(a) Is it the Council’s long term vision that this corridor continues to take the bulk of the house building for the rest of the century and beyond until there is a conurbation stretching from Emsworth to Tangmere?

A. Our planning horizon, does not extend beyond 2029. We may review during that period, if circumstances change fundamentally, but it would be inadvisable to have a longer planning horizon. This recognises the requirement for specific provision over a 15 year period (e.g. deliverable housing supply as set out in paragraph 47 of the NPPF). It would prove difficult to evidence housing needs much beyond this timescale.

37(b) If it is not, what would stop this outcome?

A. As above

37(c) Would it not be a more enlightened and prudent policy to severely ration development now rather than adopt the target which is suggested in the report of 375 homes per year for the South of the District? If not, why not?

A. Were we to adopt a target below the 395 homes per year we consider there is a heightened risk of the Plan being found unsound and us continuing to have development led by the development sector rather than by elected Members on behalf of the community.

Questions (3) by Mr Mike White, Secretary of East Broyle Residents Association, submitted on 6 March 2013 at 00.08

38. CDC have commissioned Jacobs to analyse the traffic impacts to Chichester from the proposed major expansion. What are the assumptions made for

38(a) Car journeys per new dwelling by new residents, frequency and distance travelled per journey?

38(b) Car journeys per new dwelling by visitors to those residents,

frequency and distance travelled per journey?

38(c) Non-car travel? and which roads and junctions will see an increase/decrease in traffic and congestion?

A. The Transport Study being undertaken by Jacobs specifically models peak hour traffic flows within the AM (7.00-10.00) and PM (16.00-19.00) periods. The vehicular trip rates used in the Study cover a) and b) together for peak hours and also any other trips in and out of the residential developments not falling into either of these categories. The trip rates used are based on surveys of existing residential developments held in the national "TRICS" database that are similar in terms of scale and location to the proposed Local Plan developments.

The Transport Study work has focused on the numbers of vehicular trips generated by the proposed developments, rather than the breakdown by different modes of transport. Therefore, we don’t currently have projected figures for non-car modes of travel.

In terms of distance travelled per journey, the Study uses existing travel patterns from nearby residential areas for determining the ends of the trips to and from the new development zones. This assumes that trip lengths from the new developments will be similar to those from existing housing in eastern Chichester, Tangmere and Parklands/Sherborne Road areas.

In terms of transport mitigation, it is assumed that each of the development proposals will incorporate a coordinated travel plan to minimise potential traffic impacts. These will contribute towards a wider package of targeted investment in local transport infrastructure, including improvements to the A27 junctions on the Chichester Bypass and at key pinch points in the City. Additional measures will focus on providing improved and better integrated bus and train services, and improving pedestrian and cycling networks. Linked to this will be promotional measures to encourage use of alternative to car travel, particularly for shorter trips in and around the City. Once this package has been agreed it will be included in the Local Plan Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

The Transport Study assumes that these measures will result in a 7% reduction in vehicle trips within Chichester City. This figure is based on evidence from towns where similar packages of sustainable transport measures have been implemented as part of the Department for Transport’s Sustainable Travel Towns programme.

39. A27 Chichester By-pass. The draft Plan refers on many occasions to the difficulties caused by the existing traffic congestion on the A27 Chichester Bypass and the need for it to be improved.

39(a) The current Highways Agency plan, has limited improvements, conceived in less demanding times, calls for flyovers at the Fishbourne and Bognor Road junctions, increasing from two to three lanes the A27 between Stockbridge and Fishbourne, turn left only junctions at Stockbridge, Whyke and Oving with the retention of the Portfield roundabout as is.

Is that plan the improvement envisaged? If not what is the improvement?

39(b) It has been said that WSCC & CDC will provide a local contribution of £10 million each towards the cost of the improvements. From where will WSCC & CDC get the money?

39(c) The vast bulk of the cost (£60-80 million) has to come from the Government. If funding was not provided what impact would this have on the Local Plan as drafted?

A. The Local Plan identifies a package of measures costing around £20 million that would be sufficient to mitigate the direct traffic impacts resulting from the proposed housing and other development in the Local Plan. These measures could, potentially, be funded entirely through development contributions and would not require additional funding from CDC, WSCC or central Government. They will ensure that traffic levels are not worsened by the new development proposed in the Local Plan (which meets the Government planning policy requirements set out in the National Planning Policy Framework), but would not fully address projected background growth in traffic levels over the Plan period.

The joint WSCC/CDC bid to the Department of Transport is intended to obtain funding for larger scale improvements to the Chichester Bypass that would address existing traffic congestion and safety issues. This bid is being promoted separately from the Local Plan and the developments proposed in the Local Plan are not dependent on it.

40. Involvement of Residents. If the Council takes the momentous step of adopting the preferred approach as shown in the draft Local Plan, the impact on the City of Chichester will be unprecedented. Over the short period of the Plan, the number of households in the City will increase by around 30% (from the West of the City, Shopwhyke and Old Place Farm sites). It is the existing residents of the City who will bear the consequences of this rapid expansion.

Yet, these very residents have been excluded from any involvement in the discussions that have led to the formulation of these final and long

enduring plans. This is in stark contrast to the Developers who have been in regular meetings with the Council.

What arrangements are the Council going to make to hold meetings with groups of residents to:

40(a) explain the proposals so that residents can better understand and respond to the forthcoming consultation documents;

40(b) share with them the detailed proposals made by Developers that have enabled the Council to identify the capacity of each strategic site and persuade it to include them as preferred sites; 40(c) hear and respond to residents’ concerns; and

40(d) enable residents to discuss with the Council their ideas about what should be included in the Local Plan?

A. The Council will be attending a number of events during the consultation period 22 March – 3 May, to provide information on the Local Plan and answer any questions that arise. These events will be listed on the Local Plan webpages, and on promotional leaflets distributed around the District. There will also be response forms available for residents to formally submit their concerns. Residents are able to comment on the Local Plan during the consultation period with their ideas about what should be included.

The Council has urged the site promoters to work with local communities to understand their concerns. It is understood that the site promoters are taking steps to engage with the local communities and share their proposals with them. It is intended that development at each of the strategic development sites should be planned in a coordinated way through a comprehensive master-planning process. This will involve a process of consultation and dialogue with the local community, as well as input from the Council and other key stakeholders. It is intended that master-plans will be prepared by development promoters and local communities, with on-going input from the Council and other relevant stakeholders.

Question (1) by Mr Joseph White, for and on behalf of Cedar Property UK Limited, submitted on 6 March 2013 at 07.07

41. Could Officers explain the implications for the District in terms of inward investment, jobs and affordable housing that would result from the adoption of the policies and proposals contained in the draft Local Plan?

A. The draft Local Plan and its corresponding policies will enable the delivery of 3,200 local jobs. The UK Contractors Group has shown that: for every ￡1 spent in building, 92p stays in the UK; every ￡1 spent on construction generates a total of ￡2.84 in extra local economic activity. Investment in communities will be delivered through our infrastructure delivery plan and this will be reinforced by the delivery of 25% of community infrastructure levy

funds directly to communities which have a neighbourhood plan. The Local Plan will also enable inward investment from businesses through the allocation of 25 hectares of land for economic development use.

Questions (8) by Mr Chris Cousins, on behalf of Parklands Residents’ Association, submitted on 7 March 2013 at 11.19

42. West of Chichester Strategic Location. Has the “promoters claim they could fund a direct wastewater connection to Tangmere WwTW at a cost of no more than £5m” been verified? How does this requirement affect the ability of development at this location to contribute to other infrastructure requirements particularly transport improvements and affordable housing provision?

43. What issues are there in implementing a direct wastewater connection to Tangmere WwTW from the west of Chichester Strategic location? Would such a link rely on gravity or pumping?

A. In response to a specific request from the Council, the promoters commissioned consultants to review the factors affecting foul sewage capacity in Chichester and to outline how a proposed strategic development at White House Farm would be served. Based on this work, the consultants have put forward an indicative route around the north of the City which would link the site to Tangmere WwTW. This would involve two pumping stations, one within the site and another to the East of Chichester.

44. What guarantees would there be that the west of Chichester Strategic Location would include 50% + green space?

A. The amount of green space required would be set out within a Master-plan for this strategic location, which would be drawn up in close liaison with the local community and the District Council, and with other key stakeholders as set out in Policies 16 and 7. Any planning application would be expected to conform to the master-plan and to these policies.

An intrinsic element of this proposal will conserve and protect the green landscape of this site. There will be a 30 meter green buffer being maintained along the western boundary of the site. In addition to the country park there will be an extension to Brandy Hole Copse, a town park and allotments. Phase 1 of the proposal will see a 22.5 hectare country park development with phase 2 delivering a 36 hectare country park.

45. What is the impact of the west of Chichester Strategic Location on the strategic gap between Chichester and Fishbourne identified in the current Local Plan?

A. The strategic gap concept is replaced by the concept of maintaining the individual identity of settlements, whether actual or perceived as set out in Policy 48. The master-plan for the west of Chichester Strategic location would have to provide Green Infrastructure as required in Policy 51 to ensure that coalescence would not take place with Fishbourne.

46. What would be the impact of the west of Chichester Strategic Location (on its own and when combined with other proposed development) on traffic levels in Sherborne Road, Parklands Road, Orchard Street and Brandy Hole Lane?

47. Would the west of Chichester Strategic Location include a through road link open to all traffic between Old Broyle Road and Westgate? At what stage would this be provided?

A. This has not yet been determined. As stated in paragraph 5.36 of the Local Plan, there is potential for providing a north-south spine road, but this would need to be subject to further testing as part of an access strategy. The Transport Study has modelled the development with separate accesses serving the north and south of the site without provision for a through route.

General 48. The NPPF states that local planning authorities should prepare new Local Plans on the basis that objectively assessed development needs (both for housing and other types of development) should be met, unless the adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits when assessed against the document as a whole. What analysis has the District Council undertaken to assess the “adverse impacts” (for example loss of countryside, increased congestion, reduced quality of life for existing residents, increased pressure on the historic City) of meeting its assessment of future housing demand?

A. The Council has used all of its evidence base to inform the plan, and has mapped out constraints to development, such as historic assets, areas of flood risk, areas of importance for nature conservation, agricultural land grades etc. In addition it has commissioned a series of landscape capacity studies, transport studies, employment land studies etc which also informed the Local Plan.

The level of development set out in the Local Plan has balanced its objectively assessed needs against any significant adverse impacts both individually and cumulatively. The Local Plan has sought to maintain a balance between protecting what makes the District so special, whilst allowing for sustainable growth to meet its future needs. Many of the policies contain caveats to ensure that new development does not cause, or mitigates any adverse effects.

49. Will the proposed level of development still take place if the required improvements to (a) the A27 and (b) waste water disposal facilities do not take place?

A. The level of development proposed would have to be phased and coordinated with critical infrastructure such as waste water disposal facilities. Development could not proceed without adequate wastewater facilities being in place.

Questions (2) by Ms Elizabeth Burt submitted on 7 March 2013 at 11.42

50. What measures has Chichester District Council carried out to engage with the residents of Chichester to jointly determine the vision for

Chichester over the Local Plan period and for future generations? Please provide evidence of consultation and how it has been used.

A. The Vision for the Local Plan is based on the Council’s Statement of Community Strategy (SCS). The SCS is the product of the community’s needs and aspirations as drawn up by the Local Strategic Partnership, while the Local Plan is the spatial expression of those aspirations. The SCS was subject to an extensive consultation process in 2009 which included Parish Councils and Community Forums.

In addition a public questionnaire was developed and published in the local media to help gauge public opinion. This was taken a stage further with a more detailed questionnaire going to Chichester District Council's Citizens’ Panel ('The Exchange' which had 1000 local residents representative of the district.) and three focus groups were held with members of 'The Exchange' in the District to get a more detailed public point of view.

At the same time forums of the Local Strategic Partners were consulted to ensure that the expert knowledge of our partners was included in the SCS.

A Vision for Chichester was included in the document ‘Focus on Strategic Growth Options’ which was subject to public consultation in January/February 2010. Comments received from the public and stakeholders have been fed into the drafting of this draft Local Plan.

51. Do Chichester District Council consider that they have proactively engaged with residents to inform them about strategic studies and sought their opinions on how to utilise such information in the shaping of the Local Plan and, if so, please provide a summary of what has been done?

A. All previous versions of the Local Plan for the District (including the LDF Core Strategy) have been based on studies that have been produced to inform the document being drafted i.e. Local Plan and LDF Core Strategy. These technical/background studies are undertaken by consultants/specialists with a clear brief to guide the work being carried out.

There is no statutory requirement to consult on these studies and it is considered that as they are often technical by nature and are used to inform the Local Plan, that there is no need to specifically consult with the wider community. At the same time we do consult with other government organisations such as the Environment Agency, Natural England or the Highways Authority.

All studies are placed on the Council’s website when they are completed. As they feed into the drafting of the Local Plan, the community, developers and other interested parties can make comment on the studies and interpretation as part of the consultation on the Local Plan.

Question (1) by Mr J Rank submitted on 7th March 2013 at 12.02pm

52. Amenity Space. Proposed initial development at White House Farm covers much of the land adjacent to Brandy Hole Copse (Chichester's first Local Nature Reserve) used as an amenity space by walkers and dog owners. How do CDC justify this impact on amenity space in the context of National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requirements for plans to "Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment"?

A. The Local Plan is based on a robust and credible evidence. In relation to Brandy Hole Copse, the evidence used to determine the protection of the site includes:

A Phase 1 Habitat Survey included in The Future Growth of Chichester: Landscape and Visual Amenity Consideration Study by LUC in April 2005, and the Revision of the Ancient Woodland Inventory for West Sussex, January 2010. The latter study was undertaken to assist planners in making decisions about development to ensure that the effects of any development proposals on ancient woodlands can be properly assessed and considered. Brandy Hole Copse is a Local Nature reserve, designated in 2001, and a revised Brandy Hole Copse management Plan 2008-2013 is in place. Any development proposals would have to ensure that the management Plan and its objectives are adhered to.

The Local Plan justifies itself in terms of the issue raised in the question through the following:

Policy 7, which requires strategic locations to be master-planned, and requires development to take account of and respect the character of the area.

Policy 49, which requires the biodiversity value of the site to be fully safeguarded.

Green Infrastructure will be provided as part of this development and it will be linked with the South Downs National Park via the existing Centurion Way. The Local Plan requires this development to be set within a substantial Country Park setting. The requirements include protecting and enhancing the setting of brandy Hole Copse, in order to reduce recreational pressure on the original woodland.