Category Archives: Land

An area of the earth’s physical surface

Chichester status as Gateway to The Downs under threat

February 19, 2022Environment, National ParksSDNPJohnH

John Templeton thinks we should all be worried

Most towns outside the South Downs National Park boundary proudly claim that they are a ‘gateway to the National Park.’ Indeed, the National Park Authority consider Chichester to be the major gateway to the National Park from the coastal plain.
This is because, first, Centurion Way will soon be extended from West Dean to Cocking Hill to meet the South Downs Way from Winchester to Eastbourne; and second, because Chichester’s bus and rail stations allow visitors to easily transfer from train to bus and continue on one of the three bus services to Petersfield, Midhurst or Petworth.

Proposals to improve access to the South Downs Way from both Winchester and Eastbourne are under discussion. But Chichester’s access to the Downs may be worsened if Centurion Way is diverted to allow for the Whitehouse Farm phase 2 development and by proposals to close the bus station.

Residents and the District Council need to be aware of these threats.

Post Views: 257

Proposed land swap involving Bishop Luffa School – give the Council your views

November 13, 2020Buildings, Education, Land, Neighbourhood Plan, PlanningBob

The City Council say there is the potential to swap some parcels of land between the Bishop Luffa School and the West of Chichester development site. This would enable a new extended school for ages 4-18 to be delivered on the West of Chichester Site, adjacent to the newly permitted sports pitches, and the existing school site would then be developed for housing, which would fund the building of the school. Bishop Luffa School are keen for such a land swap to go ahead. The proposal document can be viewed here.

The Council wants to know the views of locals – voting can be done online here or by indicating a preference via the last page in the document – returning it to the Council.

Voting will close on 15 December 2020

Post Views: 195

The Society’s formal response to Government on planned changes to the planning system

October 29, 2020Area of outstanding natural beauty, Land, Local Plan, Neighbourhood Plan, Planning, Planning appeals, Society responses to plansBob

The Society has previously made a response to the proposals via Civic Voice as noted in an earlier post available here. It has now filed a formal response with the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (GCLG) as noted below. (If you wish to view the Government’s consultation document it can be viewed here; the ensuing white paper can be viewed here)

Below is the Chichester Society view on the two planning consultations published by DCLG in August 2020 entitled: Changes to current Planning System and Planning for the Future. We begin with an introduction which provides some context to our circumstances here in Chichester.

Introduction

Local planning policy is governed by the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). This places upon local planning authorities (LPAs) a duty to deliver sustainable development in their area based upon nationally directed Objectively Assessed Need targets for housing (OAN). The NPPF places what is called a ‘presumption in favour of development’ on all planning applications unless it can be demonstrated that the development would be detrimental based on defined policies.

Development in any LPA area is identified by the production of a Local Plan (LP). This must be a robust and clear document that outlines the planning framework and long-term strategy over a 15-year lifespan. The LP in Chichester was adopted in 2015 with a housing allocation of 435 dwellings per annum. It needed review before July 2020 for it to have remained valid. The LP must be regularly monitored and updated in order to show that the planning authority have a five-year supply of land to meet the centrally allocated Objectively Assessed Need.

Chichester District Council (CDC) began a Review of the Adopted LP in 2016 in order to demonstrate that they had the land supply to meet the OAN of 12,350 dwellings for the remaining period (2016-2035). This means that the council had to be able to demonstrate that it had sufficient sites allocated to deliver 628 dwellings per year and this became the adopted level in the Review.

CDC is tightly constrained in the area that it can allocate for housing development because the majority of the district is located within the South Downs National Park (SDNP) which is its own LPA and is therefore excluded from the Chichester Local Plan Area. Our District also includes the Chichester Harbour AONB, Pagham Harbour Special Protection Area and Medmerry Compensatory Habitat. All these are excluded from development. This leaves a very limited area of land for housing allocation and inevitably squeezes development into a limited number of areas within the City, on the East-West corridor from Tangmere to Southbourne and on the Manhood Peninsula which is in the Southern Coastal Plain and is very fertile.

Suitable sites for development are assessed via a Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (HELAA). Sites from the HELAA are selected and identified for potential future development.

Local opposition to Highways England proposals for the A27 road improvement resulted in cancellation of their proposals. This has hindered the Local Plan Review as many of the assumptions around road capacity that informed the initial site allocations and transport capacity work had to be abandoned following the scrapping of the scheme by central government. New rules on nutrient neutrality in the waters of the Solent introduced by Natural England in June 2019 have further added to the delay of the Review.

The LP has now become out of date. Its Review is now behind schedule and as of July 2020, CDC can no longer demonstrate a five-year land supply to deliver housing. This leaves our communities vulnerable to speculative applications to bring forward sites within the HELAA assessment, which are by definition regarded as sustainable. We now live with an Interim Policy Statement aimed at limiting ‘planning by appeal’.

In August the government proposed changes to existing planning law to come into effect later this autumn.

The first was called Changes to current Planning System. It does not need primary legislation. Of particular concern are the changes to the formula used to establish the OAN. It is calculated that the new formula will result in an increase in the OAN for the CDC area from 628 to 995 dwellings per annum, a large increase.

Secondly and at the same time, the Government published a Planning White Paper called Planning for the Future the object of which is to ensure that at least 300,000 new dwellings are built in England each year. This does need primary legislation and is the biggest change to planning policy since 1947. It is to be achieved by zoning areas for ‘growth’, ‘renewal’ or ‘protection’. It proposes public participation at the consultation stage when Local Plans are drafted but reduced public consultation later on when development in ‘growth’ areas comes forward – in fact leading to abandoning the need for outline planning applications altogether in many cases. The proposal is that automatic outline permission is given for new development in “growth” areas and for “beautiful” schemes.

At present it can take 5 to 10 years to create a LP and the White Paper aims to reduce this to just 30 months. LPs will be much shorter (a reduction of 2/3rds in size is envisaged). The new style LP will be just a ‘core set of standards and requirements for development’. All this will be achieved by making new LPs subject only to the NPPF ‘sustainability’ test, by abolishing the test of ‘soundness’, abolishing ‘sustainability appraisals’ and abolishing the ‘duty to cooperate’.

Once new style LPs are in place it is proposed to limit the time it takes to determine planning applications to just 8 or 13 weeks and to achieve this, the White Paper is suggesting that LPAs must refund application fees if they exceed these periods.

We have made comments on both consultations.

Comments on ‘Changes to current Planning System’.

Below are the views of the Chichester Society on the first consultation Changes to current Planning System:

“Because of the amount of protected landscape (SDNP & AONB) within the Chichester District so little is left that is capable of development and almost all that there is comprises high grade agricultural land in farming production mainly within the southern coastal plain. With the need to increase food production, this area has some of the most fertile land in England with long sunshine hours capable of high levels of agricultural output. To destroy this natural resource and instead to build houses upon it makes no economic sense.

The housing numbers imposed on any Local Planning Authority area should not be determined by the actual size of the authority area but on the size of those parts which have no physical or environmental limits to development. Therefore, we consider that assessment of housing numbers in any District area should be reduced by the omission of those parts:

within a National Park,
an AONB,
of land liable to flood,
of grade 1 & 2 agricultural land,
of wildlife corridors
and of greenfield land important to the setting of the National Park, AONB or City.

In addition, in Chichester, so much of the demand for housing comes from completely outside the area by the insatiable demand from those elsewhere in England seeking to relocate, many for early retirement. Priority in the allocation of new housing should be given to local residents and young people

Comments on the White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’

The Chichester Society has made comment on the second consultation which is the planning White Paper called Planning for the Future set out below:

The White Paper proposes the encouragement of public participation at the consultation stage of Local Plan preparation so as to reduce consultation later on when development in comes forward.

Comment: We oppose the limiting of public engagement. Our experience has been that the standard of design falls once development is applied for. We believe that all development should continue to be the subject of individual planning applications. Public engagement is considered essential if the planning process is to be seen as trusted. Paragraph 2.48 of the White Paper states that peoples’ right to be heard in person will be changed at local plan inquiries. Planning Inspectors will be given the discretion over the form that an objector’s representation might take with the ‘right to be heard’ during a public forum removed. The right to appear and be heard could be replaced with the opportunity for an Inspector to call objectors over the phone or ask for further written comments at the Inspector’s discretion. The issue of limited public involvement becomes even more important when one considers that the opportunity to engage in the planning application process is also being diminished by the new proposals.

Making Local Plans subject only to the NPPF ‘sustainability’ test. Abolishing the test of ‘soundness’, abolishing ‘sustainability appraisals’ and abolishing the ‘duty to cooperate’.

Comment: These tests are seen as essential. We are concerned about funding for essential infrastructure. The White paper is largely silent on effective mechanisms for achieving infrastructure, housing or flood risk. The removal of the ‘Duty to Cooperate’ raises concern as how consideration will be given to resolving strategic cross boundary issues such as major infrastructure.

Involve communities in setting design codes in their area for Local Plans.

Comment: The planning system was previously reformed to address concerns that it was not sensitive enough to local needs and this brought about Neighbourhood Plans. It is particularly unclear how Neighbourhood Plans will fit into the proposed new zonal planning system. There is no clarity about the scope and power of Neighbourhood Plans in the new system. The current proposals would appear to reduce the role of Neighbourhood Plans to local design guides.

Altering the system such that all land falls within one of 3 planning zones– a ‘growth area’ suitable for substantial development’, a ‘renewal area’ which means an existing built up area which is considered suitable for development or ‘densification’ and finally a ‘protected area’ where more stringent development controls apply.

Comment: We have concern that public support to agree where ‘growth’ is to take place will be difficult, perhaps impossible.

Limit the time to determine planning applications to 8 or 13 weeks and to achieve this, to consider making LPAs refund application fees if they exceed these periods.

Comment: Such pressure is only likely to reduce public confidence in the planning system.

Increase land owner / developer contributions when land is given planning permission for development

Comment: Support

Replace paper with digital code: interactive maps, modelling and text messaging.

Comment: Support

Post Views: 175

CPRE Response to Changes to the Planning System

October 10, 2020Land, PlanningCPREBob

The Campaign to Protect Rural England has responded to the Government’s proposed changes to the Planning System.

CPRE believes that planning is crucial to empowering local communities and making
sustainable, liveable places. Ensuring everyone has a decent home, that meets their needs
and that they can afford, is essential to that, both in town and country. Equally, it is vital
that new development is planned intelligently; our countryside is precious and fragile and
urgently needs better management in the face of the climate and nature emergencies.
Critical to this is that land is not lost to development unnecessarily. More new homes are
undeniably needed, and there is plenty of scope to use previously developed urban land
to help address this need.

It is their view, however, that the proposals will mainly hinder these aims, principally
through their reliance on centralised prescription and formulae instead of on judgement
and local evidence. They state that the consultation itself is symptomatic of Government’s apparent reluctance for meaningful input. It asks respondents to comment on a wide range of specific details, but doesn’t consult on the policy principles that underpin the proposals, despite these being often the most important points people will wish to address.

The full response from the CPRE can be read here.

The Chichester Society was one of many organisations contributing to this response – it’s response can be found here

Post Views: 161

ChiSoc responds to UK Government Consultation on changes to the planning system

September 21, 2020Area of outstanding natural beauty, Land, National Parks, Neighbourhood Plan, Planning, Planning appeals, Society responses to plansBob

The Chichester Society has submitted a response to two Government documents relating to the planning system.

First the Government has published a consultation document on changes to the planning system a copy of which can be viewed here. The consultation ends at 11:45pm on 1 October 2020. Ways for members of the public to respond can be found here.

Second the Government has also issued a White Paper ‘Planning for the Future’ which can be found here.

The Chichester Society Executive Committee has submitted the following response:

To Civic Voice

The Chichester Society is making the representations set out below to Government on the two planning Consultations.

Changes to current Planning Systems, a consultation paper with proposals to improve the effectiveness of the current system. It will be found on this link:

Our comment:

Whereas under current policies the assessment of how many new dwellings are to be planned for in any given district is subject to a cap, which applies as a limit to the number, the new method will remove that cap. In addition, statistical sources for determining the starting number of new homes will now involve the use of the ‘higher of’ of various statistics. The Chichester District Local Plan 2015 which expired in July this year contained a requirement for 435 dwellings per annum. We understand that the number will increase to 995 dpa or thereabouts as a result of the changes now proposed which we consider excessive.

These changes pay no regard to local circumstance. They treat all parts of England in the same way. We believe that the individual character of our District areas should be assessed rather than our being handed a formula of “one size fits all”.

Because of the amount of protected landscape (SDNP & AONB) within the Chichester District so little is left that is capable of development and almost all that there is comprises high grade agricultural land in farming production mainly within the southern coastal plain. With the need to increase food production, this area has some of the most fertile land in England with long sunshine hours capable of high levels of agricultural output. To destroy this natural resource and instead to build houses upon it makes no economic sense.

The housing numbers imposed on any Local Planning Authority area should not be determined by the actual size of the authority area but on the size of those parts which have no physical or environmental limits to development. Therefore, we consider that assessment of housing number in any District area should be reduced by the omission of those parts:

within a National Park,
an AONB,
land liable to flood,
grade 1 & 2 agricultural land,
wildlife corridors
and greenfield land important to the setting of the any National Park, AONB or City.

2 Planning for the Future (The White Paper) will be found on this link:

Our Comment

It is proposed to reduce the content of Local Plans. The changes envisage reducing the size of LPs by ‘at least 2/3rds’ by cutting out all lists of ‘policies’ and instead producing a ‘core set of standards and requirements for development’.

Comment: This is a huge task for Local Planning Authorities with limited staff and expertise to create what will need to be site specific sets of ‘standards and requirements for development’ on all areas where ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ is to be zoned.

Encouraging greater public participation at the consultation stage of LPs so as to reduce consultation later on when development in ‘growth’ areas comes forward – in fact leading to abandoning the need for outline planning applications altogether in many cases. The proposal is that automatic outline permission is given for new development in “growth” areas and for “beautiful” schemes.

Comment: We oppose the limiting of public engagement on where new development is to be allocated to that period during the Local Plan preparation. Our experience has been that the standard of design falls once development is applied for. We believe that all development should continue to be the subject of individual planning applications.

Making LPs subject only to the NPPF ‘sustainability’ test, abolishing the test of ‘soundness’, abolishing ‘sustainability appraisals’ and abolishing the ‘duty to cooperate’.

Comment: These tests are seen as essential in preventing a ’developers’ charter.

Limit content of LPs to that of setting out site or area specific parameters.

Comment: This is a huge task beyond the capacity of most District PLA’s and would need major public engagement to be seen as trusted.

Involve communities in setting design codes in their area for LPs.

Comment: Looking at the National Design Guide published in Oct 2019, it says almost nothing about community involvement in setting local design codes which we think it should have done. Communities will want involvement provided they believe they will be listened to.

Nationally to set a new infrastructure levy for infrastructure and affordable housing.

Comment: no comment

Alter Local Planning Authority (LPA) planning roles to that of appointing a chief officer for ‘design and place making’. The indication is that this may become a ‘statutory appointment’.

Comment: no comment

Altering the system such that all land falls within one of 3 planning zones– a ‘growth area’ suitable for substantial development’, a ‘renewal area’ which means an existing built up area which is considered suitable for development or ‘densification’ and finally a ‘protected area’ where more stringent development controls apply.

Comment: We have concern that public support to agree where ‘growth’ is to take place will be difficult, perhaps impossible. We consider allocating land for ‘renewal’ and ‘protection’ will be easier.

Limit the time to determine planning applications to 8 or 13 weeks and to achieve this, to consider making LPAs refund application fees if they exceed these periods.

Comment: Such pressure is only likely to reduce public confidence in the planning system.

Reduce the time to produce a LP to just 30 months, with the threat of government intervention if exceeded. Give Planning Inspectors holding LP examinations the right to decide who is called to give evidence, the intention being to shorten the process.

Comment: This is a huge task for LPA’s with limited staff and expertise to create what will need to be site specific sets of ‘standards and requirements for development’ on all areas where ‘growth’ or ‘renewal’ is to be zoned.

Increase ‘permitted development’ rules

Comment: still under discussion

Increase land owner / developer contributions when land is given pp for development

Comment: Support

Replace paper with digital code: interactive maps, modelling and text messaging.

Comment: Support

Post Views: 215

Groundwork proceeds for housing development at Whitehouse Farm

April 27, 2020Land, Maps, PlanningWhitehouse FarmBob

In April 2018 The Chichester District Council approved outline planning application 14/04301/OUT “for the first phase of development for up to 750 homes with
access from Old Broyle Road, temporary access from Clay Lane, a local centre (with
associated employment, retail and community uses), primary school, informal and formal open space (including a Country Park), playing pitches, associated landscaping, utilities and drainage infrastructure with onsite foul sewage package treatment plant or pumping station with connection to Tangmere Waste Water Treatment Works“.

So, what visible progress has been made?

Well, a walk up Centurion Way on 20 April began to make clear – as shown below – the visual and environmental impact that this development will have on Chichester, irrespective of the benefits it will bring to those seeking homes of their own.

Click on the images to enlarge them.

What will disappear as a result of the development?

The first image below is from Google Earth and shows the original natural landscape, pre-development.

The second image shows the local landscape character and context as documented by WYG development consultants acting on behalf of Linden Homes and Miller Homes. It shows what ancient and distinctive features will be lost.

The third image shows the site plan from the original application and it is relatively easy to visually overlay this over the natural landscape image.

If you have any comments on this topic please contribute by adding them below.

Post Views: 831

Sussex Local Nature Partnership’s Natural Capital Investment Strategy is endorsed by the WSCC

February 20, 2020Environment, Land, Planning, Trees, WaterBob

The Society has an interest in preservation, protection and improvement in the City of Chichester and its environs and to this extent the natural environment is is an area of concern.

The term ‘natural capital’ describes the parts of the natural environment -‘stocks’ of waters, land, air, species, minerals and oceans – that produce value to people. The capital generates ‘goods’ such as clean air and water, food, energy, wildlife, recreation and protection from hazards.

Locally, in this context, the Sussex Local Nature Partnership (NLP) was established “to work across sectors and organisations to secure the healthiest ecological system possible thereby protecting and enhancing the natural environment and all that it gives us”. Its Memorandum of Understanding of February 2014 brings together a wide range of interested parties from farming, local and national government, agencies, businesses, NGOs and research organisations represented on an Executive Committee “formed in such a way as to encourage conversations and interactions to promote the emergence of ideas, thoughts and interactions which will then lead to actions”.

The major output from the NLP has been the Natural Capital Investment Strategy for Sussex 2019-2024 adopted on October 2019 and published in December that year. This Strategy was endorsed by the County Council on 19th February who see it as providing “an important part of the evidence base for the development of the Local Industrial Strategy, the emerging West Sussex Climate Change and Environment Strategy and the East Sussex equivalent”. The strategy comes into effect at the end a call-in period which ends 28 February unless the call-in procedure is activated.

Post Views: 205

Living with beauty – report of the Building Better, Building Beautiful Commission

January 31, 2020Environment, Land, Planning, StructureBob

The Commission was established as an independent body to advise the UK Government on how to promote and increase the use of high-quality design for new build homes and neighbourhoods. It released its first report ‘Living with Beauty’ on 30 January 2020.

They stress that beauty must become the natural result of working within our planning system. To achieve this result, they have three aims for the system as a whole –

Ask for Beauty
Refuse Ugliness
Promote Stewardship

They state these aims must be embedded in the planning system and in the culture of development, in such a way as to incentivise beauty and deter ugliness at every point where the choice arises. To do this they make policy proposals in the following areas:

Planning: create a predictable level playing field
Communities: bring the democracy forward
Stewardship: incentivise responsibility to the future
Regeneration: end the scandal of left behind place
Neighbourhoods: create places not just houses
Nature: re-green our towns and cities
Education: promote a wider understanding of placemaking
Management: value planning, count happiness, procure properly

If you have a view on this please you are welcome to add your comments below.

Post Views: 165

Chichester’s Southern Gateway – an update

September 24, 2019Highways, Land, Planning, Structure, TransportGateway+, Southern gatewayBob

Robin Hamilton updates readers about the Gateway+ development campaign

This is an update on the Gateway + campaign to offer a dynamic alternative to the Southern Gateway proposal by Chichester District Council (CDC). We see the Gateway+ proposal more as a development of the CDC initiative rather than an alternative. The recognition of the need to develop the southern part of Chichester is in no doubt. It is how this opportunity should be grasped is where we differ.

Please support this initative – we welcome comments added to this post

How we came this far

You may well have seen our previous articles aboutGateway + but in case you didn’t, here is a short synopsisof the history of Gateway+. Early in 2018 a small groupof local residents met to discuss the recently publishedproposals for the Southern Gateway. They felt that CDC’sproposals did not go nearly far enough consideringthis is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to do somethingin Chichester that will be a lasting memory of ourgeneration. After some research into what residents andbusinesses would like to happen in this part of Chichesterthe group organised a presentation in Pallant HouseGallery in June last year. The reception by those who attended, and the general public since then, has beenvery encouraging – particularly from the younger peopleof Chichester!

Outline plans

Since then the Gateway+ proposals have been honed to the outline plans we have today.

In summary, we propose a development that would create an Exhibition/ Conference Hall of 100,000 square feet. This would be capable of holding medium sized exhibitions, concerts and performances seating around 2,500 people. We are naming this cultural centre The Forum to hint at the city’s Roman history. Alongside The Forum we propose a 250-bedroom Forum Hotel while in front of The Forum would be a large open area for temporary stalls and socialising named the Forum Square. Our research shows there is a need for some small business starter units with accommodation above which we suggest could be built to the west called the Forum Village. Gateway+ foresees this might develop into Chichester’s Silicon Valley. Finally, we have learnt that NHS England would like to provide a new medical centre for primary care, and Gateway+ proposes a new building currently called The Forum Lozenge which might be renamed the Forum Medical Centre. Our suggested layout can be understoodin the aerial street plan below.

Chichester Station

We also understand Network Rail would very much like to consider developing the station and create at least one more platform so that they would have the opportunity to run a metro line between Chichester and Bognor, which would be a vital ingredient to reducing traffic along the A27 and A259. Indeed, the University would also very much like this because their two campuses are served by buses at the moment. Our proposal suggests a new station with high level concourse to house the ticket office and shops with escalators down to the platform. This would also serve to link the Forum to the Southern Leisure Park.

Replace the level crossings

Gateway+ proposals also tackle one of the most contentious issues on the south side of Chichester, which are the level crossings. We propose that both crossings should be removed and replaced with a two-way underpass at Basin Road sufficient in height for single decker buses to pass. Some believe this is not possible, but we have consulted at least two engineers who confirm it is indeed technically achievable.

Simplify the road layout

Gateway+ proposals also provide a solution to the currently chaotic road layout which causes appalling delays and serious environmental problems. As part of this revised layout a new Transport Hub would be situated between the Ave de Chartres Car Park and The Forum, where buses, taxis, coaches, and maybe electric mini trams could operate.

Chichester’s changed political context

As you will all now know there has been a seismic shift in CDC’s political balance after the May local elections. The previous Gateway+ proposals were not adequately received by the previous council whose Masterplan is now well out of date and does not deal with the problems faced by Chichester and its inhabitants. Gateway+ now hopes to promote our ideas to the newly elected council members and we have indeed had very supportive comments from many of those now representing us all. We are particularly encouraged by the support of all parties after recent discussions. We are aware that CDC is assessing interest from developers to their Southern Gateway Master Plan based on a development brief sent out in April 2019. We also understand that Council officers are not fixed on the current proposals and if Councillors or any other parties wish to suggest other schemes, they will take these into account. We see the Gateway+ job is to make sure all Councillors are aware of our ideas so they can reach a much bolder proposal for this once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to enhance what Chichester has to offer.

Please help Gateway+

We ask you to consider helping in the following ways:

Contact your councillor and ask them to support Gateway+
Discuss Southern Gateway with your friends and encourage them to do the same thing • Let us have your email address so we can keep you informed.
Consider contributing a small amount (say, £10) to our campaign. You can find out details of how to contribute on our website whose address is: http://www.gateway-plus.co.uk/about.

We plan to have a further meeting in the City to update everyone on our campaign. We hope we can count on your support and do get in touch if you wold like more information or would like to get more involved with Gateway+.

We need funds to accelerate our publicity so that we create a groundswell for these ideas. Our intention is to spread the word far and wide so we cannot be ignored by those who will finally make the decision of what is to happen to Chichester’s so-called Southern Gateway.

(This article originally appeared in the September 2019 edition of the Society’s Newsletter)

Post Views: 166

Council has extra housing allocation ‘dumped’ on it by SDNPA

December 22, 2018Land, PlanningSDNPBob

Chichester District Council (CDC) explain on their website that : “changes to the way the Government requires us to calculate future housing needs means that we now plan to build at least 650 new homes each year in the Local Plan Area, up to 2035”.

But Planning Policy requires CDC to accommodate only 609 new homes each year; however, in addition, they are under a duty to add an allowance “for accommodating unmet need arising from the Chichester District part of the South Downs National Park Authority (SDNPA).”

The SDNPA have a shortfall of 41 dwellings in what they say they can accommodate resulting in an additional 41 dwellings being added to the CDC figure making 650 new dwellings each year.

We question this decision because CDC has so little space on which to build all these houses.

To the north lies the SDNP, to the south lies the Chichester Harbour AONB and then the Manhood Peninsula which is part of the southern coastal plain. The southern coastal plain has some of the highest grade agricultural land in the country comprising highly productive brick earth strata and a climate suited to early ripening crops.

How can the SDNPA fail to provide sufficient space for their own housing needs despite towns such as Midhurst needing to expand?

Post Views: 297