Category Archives: Planning

Local Plan and Planning Concept Statements

Local Plan, ,

Chichester residents will be increasingly aware that the Draft Local Plan proposes extensive new areas of housing plus a small amount of employment on what the District Council calls ‘strategic sites’ around Chichester.

As the Society reviews the developing Local Plan, these sites feel very far short of real strategic planning. Rather they have come to the fore simply as a result of developers proposing patches of land that they own (or have options on). And the Council has not had the resources – or the foresight – to do much more than acquiesce.

Be that as it may, the approval or otherwise of the sites now rests with an Examination in Public in September, when the Plan will be scrutinised by an Inspector appointed by Whitehall. Somehow, this process again seems to fall short of the much-vaunted idea of Localism!

Further, despite this official timetable, the developers are now doing their best to jump the gun. They are preparing plans (as at Whitehouse Farm) and submitting planning applications (as at Westhampnett) in advance of any approval under the incoming Local Plan. Presumably, they see an advantage in being ready to go as soon as the Local Plan is approved, rather than starting from scratch when – or rather if – it is.

Another incentive for developers to push the pace is that, if development begins early, they are likely to be liable for much smaller contributions to local communities, in terms of playing fields, village halls, road improvements and the like.

This is because, at present, developers give back to the community through “Planning Gain” in the form of ‘Section 106’ agreements, which are widely seen as less onerous than the system of Planning Gain through the ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ (CIL) that will come in with the Local Plan.

To oppose this juggernaut, the District Council has invested some effort in erecting defensive screens called ‘Concept Statements’. These are intended to be indications of how the council would like the site to be developed, formulated by ‘community planning’. Which is admirable, you may say, and in principle that is true.

But in practice, the community meetings have been squeezed into a foreshortened timetable. The Tangmere one was brought forward from September to June without due notice, and the Westhampnett one happened before anyone in Chichester City had heard about it!

Local parish councils did know; but the developments are on a district-wide scale and would weld the new strategic sites irrevocably to Chichester itself. This is an extension of the problem of pitting under-resourced local councils against over-resourced developers backed by central government.

Worse, it now appears that these Concept Statements may be worth little more than the paper they are written on. They are apparently only a ‘material consideration’ which effectively means that a developer can ignore them if they can find any reason for doing so.

To illustrate the point, the developers who want to build on the corner of Stane Street and Madgwick Lane managed to get through a 2-hour presentation and question session without mentioning concept statements once; and the developers for Whitehouse Farm mounted an exhibition of their plans for the site before the concept statement for that area has even been published.

We will look back in 20 years’ time and wonder how Local Government ever deserved that name.

Post Views: 568

Development east of Chichester “may damage the future of Rolls Royce”

Local Plan, ,

So says Mr. Torsten Müller-Ötvös,  the chief executive of Rolls Royce Cars, about plans to build on the green fields between Chichester and Rolls Royce’s “Telly Tubby” (sedum roofed) factory at Westhampnett.

In a report in the Chichester Observer, he explains “Rolls Royce will effectively be located within a housing estate that is indistinguishable from any UK urban location; exactly the situation we sought so hard to avoid” when they planned their move into the area.

The Society has its own reservations about this planning application, which is just the latest instance of growing piecemeal destruction of the rural surroundings of the city and the wider district.

In fact, we have rather a lot to say. In our response to planning application 14/01159/OUTEIA, we have commented that this development:

“would meet none of the three dimensions to sustainable development as required under the Government’s National Planning Policy Framework: Economic, Social or Environmental;

would adversely impact on the Economy of the Goodwood Estate and the Rolls Royce plant, both of which derive major benefits from the ambience of their settings;

would fail to integrate with, and would indeed overwhelm, the social character of Westhampnett village; and

would destroy the rural environs of Chichester, Westhampnett and Goodwood, and harm the setting of the South Downs National Park.”

We also noted that the Draft Local Plan identifes no need for extra housing at Westhampnett. But permission has nevertheless been given for 100 houses on another nearby site. So Westhampnett is already delivering more than is being asked of it.

For a longer summary, see here. Or to read our submission in full, see here.

Post Views: 354

Objection to Westhampnett housing development

Local Plan

The Society objected to the large scale housing at Westhampnett. The following is a summary of its submission to the Chichester District Council.

1) This site conflicts with ‘saved policies’ to “protect the rural area” (Policy RE1), protect the identity of settlements (RE6), and to protect the local environment and setting in the landscape (BE11).

2) Any outline planning application here is premature.

3) The site is well beyond the Settlement Policy Area … and can’t even be integrated with the existing village.

4) The site failes no less than six of the criteria set out in Interim Policy Statement on Housing (FAD) of July 2012. Sadly this statement no longer has force, but it’s reasoning remains sound.

5) Any housing here would intrude into views from and into the South Downs National park, and hence would detract from the experience of visitors to the National Park, not to mention local events including the horseracing at the top of the hill and the festivals at the bottom of the hill at Goodwood.

6) The prosed link road into the development would detract from the rural quality of the lane and would also destroy a section of mature hedgerow identified as part of a Bat network.

7) The Draft Local Plan identifes no need for extra housing at Westhampnett. Even so, planning permission has been permitted for 100 houses on another nearby site. So Westhampnett is already delivering more than is being asked of it.

 

Post Views: 281