Category Archives: Area of outstanding natural beauty

Fine landscapes, of great variety in character and extent given special protection for their outstanding natural beauty.

Racing Against the Tide: Fighting to Preserve Chichester Harbour

Racing Against the Tide: How the Chichester Harbour Conservancy is Fighting to Preserve England’s Most Beautiful and Busiest Leisure Harbour

Chichester Harbour is one of England’s most beautiful natural treasures; a stunning expanse of coastal water, salt marshes and wildlife that draws thousands of visitors each year. Yet beneath its picturesque surface lies a troubling reality: the harbour is in decline and the organisation tasked with saving it is fighting an uphill battle against climate change, pollution and unchecked development.

The Chichester Society invited Matt Briers, the Chief Executive Officer of Chichester Harbour Conservancy to speak at one of our Coffee Mornings. Matt doesn’t mince words about the challenge ahead. “The harbour is rated as unfavourable and declining,” he says bluntly, citing a 2021 review by Natural England that assessed the harbour’s overall condition with those stark terms. Having spent a distinguished career in the Royal Navy, most recently as director of the Carrier Strike Programme, overseeing a £26 billion defence initiative, Matt has traded military strategy for environmental conservation.

A Unique Organisation with Conflicting Mandates
What makes Chichester Harbour Conservancy unique is that it was established by its own Act of Parliament in 1971, making it the only organisation of its kind in the UK. This legal foundation grants it statutory authority over the harbour’s 30 square miles, but it also sets the organisation with an apparently contradictory mandate: to facilitate leisure and recreation while simultaneously protecting nature.
The Conservancy manages an impressive portfolio. Within its remit are 10,500 vessels, 5,200 moorings and berths, 14 sailing clubs, and 63 miles of footpaths. It’s arguably Europe’s busiest leisure harbour, yet it’s also home to internationally important bird populations and habitats of critical ecological significance. The organisation employs just 31 permanent staff, of which only 13 are full-time, supplemented by seasonal workers and volunteers who form the backbone of its conservation efforts.
“We are a very taut organisation,” Briers explains. “We’re probably under-resourced by 10 to 15 percent in human terms, but that’s the way we are.”

The Environmental Crisis
The core problem facing the Conservancy is environmental degradation occurring at an alarming rate. Since 1946, the harbour has lost 58 percent of its salt marsh, a decline so gradual that most people haven’t noticed, yet so profound that it fundamentally threatens the ecosystem.
Salt marshes are ecological powerhouses. They sequester carbon at a rate of 7.97 tons per hectare per year, more than 50 times faster than tropical rainforests. They provide crucial habitat for fish, invertebrates, and birds and they act as natural barriers against tidal surges and coastal erosion. Yet they’re disappearing due to a phenomenon called “coastal squeeze.”
When sea levels rise naturally, salt marshes migrate inland to maintain their ecological niche. But the harbour’s 19th-century sea walls prevent this migration. Trapped between rising water and immovable barriers, the marshes simply die out. Climate change is accelerating the problem, with projections showing catastrophic sea-level rise that could render areas like Thorney Island entirely submerged by century’s end.
The Conservancy is attempting to address this through projects like the Fishbourne Footpath to Nature Recovery Project, which involves strategically removing a decaying seawall to allow natural salt marsh regeneration. It’s a small intervention in a much larger crisis, but it demonstrates the kind of proactive thinking the organisation brings to environmental management.

Water Quality: A Multifaceted Nightmare
Protection of the environment is the Conservancy’s primary concern, with water quality a key element of this. The harbour faces pollution from multiple sources: nitrates from agricultural runoff, sewage from inadequate infrastructure, pharmaceuticals that pass through wastewater treatment unchanged and microplastics from synthetic clothing and vehicle tyres.
The pharmaceutical problem is particularly insidious. When someone takes a paracetamol and then goes to the toilet, it flushes into the harbour within 48 hours. Synthetic hormones in HRT and contraceptive devices have left the water so saturated with oestrogen that shellfish are changing sex and fish sperm counts are reducing. There’s no technical solution at present short of distilling the contaminated water, which would be prohibitively expensive and ecologically catastrophic if simply reintroduced to the harbour.
Briers recently wrote to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Water and Flooding proposing ten national policy changes to address these issues, ranging from mandating microfibre filters on all washing machines (already standard in the Falkland Islands) to regulating pharmaceutical companies more strictly. He has yet to receive a response. He’s also advocating for a catchment-wide approach to reducing nitrates, working with South Downs National Park to engage farmers upstream of the harbour.
Southern Water’s £8.5 billion infrastructure investment programme offers hope, but Briers worries that new housing developments will consume the additional capacity before environmental improvements materialise. This concern points to a broader challenge: planning and development.

The Development Dilemma
The Conservancy is not a statutory consultee in planning matters, a significant handicap given the scale of proposed development around the harbour. There are currently plans for nearly 1,000 new dwellings in the surrounding area, threatening both the visual integrity of this nationally important landscape and the already-strained sewage infrastructure.
Briers has attempted twice to gain statutory consultee status, only to be rebuffed by governments focused on housing targets. The current administration, he notes, is “very much in the space of building houses. That’s their main focus.”
This creates a frustrating dynamic where the Conservancy must spend significant funds challenging planning applications through formal processes, despite having no guaranteed influence on decisions. Yet Briers remains committed to what he calls “elevating” environmental concerns—a more measured approach than simply shouting, though some in the audience have suggested the time for polite advocacy may have passed.

Education and Community Engagement
Not everything at the Conservancy is defensive. The Dell Quay Education Centre, which has welcomed nearly 200,000 children since opening in 1999, represents what Briers calls “one of the jewels in the crown” of the organisation. Many of these children come from disadvantaged backgrounds.
By connecting young people to the harbour through field trips and hands-on learning, the Conservancy is building a constituency of environmentally aware citizens who will inherit the challenges of protecting this landscape.

Looking Forward
Briers’ final message is one of determination. The job is difficult, but not impossible. The Conservancy will continue pursuing local successes while advocating for national policy changes. Upcoming local government reorganisation and the introduction of a mayor present new opportunities to amplify the conservation message.
Implicit in this is the need for difficult decisions to be made. Here, the Conservancy’s role will be to make challenging (and at times unpopular) decisions for the benefit of the environment and the wider harbour. He added, that “if the Conservancy doesn’t take a stand, then who will?”

The harbour’s future will ultimately depend on whether society makes the right choices to responsibly balance its requirements with the needs of the environment. The Conservancy contend that the conservation and restoration of nature isn’t a luxury, but a necessity. For Briers, who traded the certainty of military hierarchy for the messy complexity of environmental stewardship, it’s a challenge worth fighting for.

Recorded by Ben Williams, ChiSoc Executive Committee member – with a little help from AI 

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

The Society has previously made a response to the proposals via Civic Voice as noted in an earlier post available hereIt 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

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

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 PaperPlanning 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.

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

 

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