Agenda – Session 7 Monday 25 September 2017 at 0930 hours Matter 4c Strategic Housing Allocations – Greater Bognor Regis (SD1-SD3) Issues 1. General There are 3 strategic housing allocations proposed for the Greater Bognor Regis Urban Area at Pagham South (SD1), Pagham North (SD2) and West of Bersted (SD3). The allocations would provide an estimated 400, 800 and 2,500 dwellings respectively. Policy H SP2 sets out requirements for all of the strategic housing allocations whereas Policy H SP2a includes specific design and infrastructure requirements for each of the allocations. Modifications are proposed to Policy H SP2 to include Table 12.3 within the policy and delete reference to the Garden City movement. 1.1 In general terms is the proportion of dwellings allocated to Greater Bognor Regis by Policy H SP2 justified (35%)? The Council refers to the role of Bognor Regis as a main service centre with existing infrastructure which will be maintained and improved by the proposed growth. 1.2 Are the housing numbers for each allocation appropriate taking into account site areas and infrastructure requirements, noting that the term ‘at least’ is used within the policy? The Council point out that the numbers derive from land available and applying suitable densities, including the need for accessible green space. 1.4 What is the up-to-date position in relation to planning applications for these sites? This is set out in the Schedule of Strategic Sites (PELVP33) 1.3 Should the dwelling numbers for Pagham North be adjusted to reflect the current planning applications? 2. Constraints Pagham South lies just outside the 400m buffer for the Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area (SPA). Pagham North and West of Bersted lie within the SPA 5km buffer. 2.1 What are the reasons for the contradictory evidence about the presence of Brent Geese and other bird species on the Pagham South and North sites? The Council suggests that there are no impacts on the conclusions contained 1 within the HRA from recent evidence submitted. Technical Note PELP33a is relevant. 2.2 Does the evidence indicate that significant adverse effects are likely and therefore Appropriate Assessment will be required? Taking into account proposed MMs the Council does not consider that there are likely to be any significant adverse effects. 2.3 Would any other protected species be likely to be adversely affected? E.g. water voles. The Council refers to ecological surveys which reveal the need for appropriate mitigation. 2.4 Would the package of management measures put in place by ADC and Chichester DC (through an SPD) mitigate any significant effects on the SPA (Natural England letter of 29 June 2016 refers)? The Council refers to the measures comprising wardens and other actions. 2.5 Will the criteria within Policy H SP2a ensure that any necessary mitigation for the SPA, including management measures and provision of open space, is put in place? The Council refers to the criteria within Policies H SP2a and ENV DM2. Landscape - the allocations would extend the urban area into existing open countryside and land forming part of the gaps between settlements. 2.6 Is the landscape impact within acceptable bounds having regard to any mitigation proposed? The Council refers to the Landscape Capacity Study and information provided with applications. Concerns have been raised about the capacity of the local and wider transport network to accommodate the additional development. 2.7 Would the highway network be able to accommodate the additional traffic movements arising from the allocations, particularly those at Pagham North and South? 2.8 What highway improvements would be necessary to ensure that the allocations would have safe and suitable accesses and the highway network would be able to operate safely and efficiently? 2.9 Would the residual cumulative impacts of the developments on the highway network be less than severe taking into account such improvements? The Council notes the Arun Transport Study and the mitigation that in its view would remove severe impacts. 2 Flood risk and/or drainage issues affect the sites to varying degrees. 2.10 Are flood risk and drainage issues capable of being mitigated? The Council points out that the allocations are entirely within Flood Zone 1 apart from a small part of Pagham South. Culverts and ditches would require clearing and maintaining to assist drainage. 2.12 Are there any foul drainage constraints in relation to Pagham WWTW? The majority of the allocations are the best and most versatile (BMV) agricultural land (Grades 2 and 3a). 2.13 Is the use of significant areas of the BMV agricultural land around Bognor Regis necessary? 3. Specific Policy and Infrastructure Requirements Policy H SP2a includes provision for community hubs, schools and other facilities in Pagham and West of Bersted. An additional criterion is to be included within the policy relating to links between the allocations and Bognor Regis Town Centre. Employment land is to form part of the West of Bersted allocation. 3.1 Are the design and infrastructure requirements within Policy H SP2a necessary and deliverable? 3.2 Are there any other design and infrastructure requirements that have not been incorporated into the policy? For example should provision be made within the criteria for Pagham for contributions to health care facilities at West of Bersted? 3.3 Does the criterion within Policy H SP2a relating to employment provision need to be strengthened so that the amount of land and its delivery is certain? In relation to 3.2 the Council refers to Policy INF SP1. With regard to 3.3 the Council does not wish to be prescriptive as market conditions will dictate what can be provided which will be included in master plans. 4. Delivery 4.1 Are the allocations deliverable within the Plan period taking into account policy and infrastructure requirements and viability issues? The Council points to progress on planning applications and that the sites have been subject to viability assessment. 4.2 Is there a need for the parcels of land at Pagham North to be developed together? The need to plan together is emphasised by the Council, particularly so that infrastructure can be delivered. 4.3 Does the wording of the LP need to be modified to reflect a need for comprehensive planning of the sites rather than being developed in conjunction? 3 Main Modifications (MMs) Proposed MM28 is relevant to this session. Main Evidence Base PELP31-33 HRA 2016 PELP33a – Technical Note on HRA September 2017 PESP5a-5e – Landscape Capacity of Strategic Sites PEPP2 – Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment November 2016 PELVP21 – Local Plan Viability Assessment January 2017 PELVP33 – Status of Strategic Sites September 2017 PEPTP6, 7 & 8a-8d – Surface Water Management Studies PEPTP9 – Sequential and Exception Tests February 2017 PEPTP10 – Strategic Flood Risk Assessment Update 2016 ADCED48 – ADC answers to Inspectors Preliminary Questions ADCED49 and 50 – Tables of Main and Additional Modifications Participants ADC Owen Jones LRM Planning (on behalf of Hallam Land Management Ltd) Kia Trainor (CPRE) Ed Hanson (Barton Wilmore) R Collins Colin Hamilton Paul Fong Hunter Page Planning (on behalf of Hanbury PM Ltd) Andrew Wilford Barton Wilmore (on behalf of Taylor Wimpey) Rob Martin (Angmering Parish Council) Nicola Jones (Pagham Parish Council) Pauline Roberts Lichfields and others (on behalf of Church Commissioners and Langmead Group) MA Nichols Martin Lury (Bersted Parish Council) Statements ADC Lichfields LRM Planning Hunter Page Planning Barton Willmore x 2 Pagham Parish Council 4 .