1/. Strategic Planning has included fracking policy, and planning for Solar farms and Wind turbines, with some comments to National Office. We also objected to the Kirdford fracking application.
2/. We have strongly objected to the draft Local Plan, which is currently approved by the CDC and awaiting the appointment of a Planning Inspector for an examination. Our objections to that required the abolition of the current draft on housing requirements and the preparation of a new one under a different consultant. This was because the CDC wrongly “updated” the 2009 SHMA in November 2012, for all the Coastal Districts of West Sussex. Instead they should have produced a new SHMA under NPPF159 for Chichester District, including Objectively Assessed Needs for housing under NPPF47. Furthermore the CDC then ignored the revocation of the SE Plan in March last year, and still pursued their housing policy under the DCLG’s outdated Planning Guidance of 2007 based on Regional Spatial Strategies. Finally they ignored the DCLG Planning Practice Guidance of March 2014, which not only replaced the 2007 version, but also provided a totally different methodology for assessing housing requirements, which was also ignored.
3/. As regards planning applications, most of the problems have been on or near the Manhood Peninsular. That is because the District has the Harbour AONB to the west and the downs AONB and National Park to the north. This area still contains the largest amount of relatively unspoilt coastal countryside between Worthing and Southampton. The hinterland from the coastline contains many quiet country lanes used by residents and tourists. These need protection from NPPF114 : “ lpas should maintain the character of the undeveloped coast, protecting and enhancing its distinctive landscapes”... The chief problem has been the absence of a 5 year Housing Land Supply. We have had to base our objections primarily on NPPF14: (the adverse impacts will...outweigh the benefits). But since March this year we have used the Keepers Wood case in Lavant which, on Appeal, decided that a site in a Strategic Gap could be refused housing development despite there being no adequate 5 year Housing Land Supply. We have also used that case to deter development in AONBs, which is an a fortiori argument. Since March this year we have frequently objected to planning applications and appeals on the grounds that the CDC’s housing requirements are now unlawful (our para 2 above). The Inspectorate must have seen our views several times, indeed we stated them personally at one appeal enquiry.
4/. On the whole we have failed to prevent development near Selsey and Bracklesham and at Sidlesham, but have had some possible success elsewhere. We have objected to development in Nutbourne, Southbourne, Tangmere, Chidham, Sidlesham, and Bosham, also several sites in Birdham inside the AONB. The most recent case of wide importance is for 160 houses in Clappers Lane near Earnley, on a site adjacent to onewhich already has planning permission for 50 houses. So there will be a total of 210 houses adding to traffic problems. There has been much help towards a refusal here from many parish councils and local residents’ associations. Mainly covering access by car for commuters and tourists to and from Chichester. This would cause huge damage to local residents and the use of quiet country lanes providing routes through the already overloaded A286 and to the A27 through its congested junctions
5/. We will be objecting to most of the individual 3550 Strategic sites planned by the CDC, as they come up for planning permission
Richard Hill.
May 2014