Agenda item

The Planning Committee are asked to consider the attached report and make the following recommendation;

That the Committee approves the recommendation to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of land at Droke Lane, East Dean, and the South Downs National Park Authority to secure the provision of a credit-selling nitrates mitigation scheme.

The Committee approves the report recommendation to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of land at Droke Lane, East Dean and the South Downs National Park Authority to secure the provision of a credit-selling nitrates mitigation scheme.

Ms Stevens presented the report to the Committee. Mr Day, (Environmental Manager), Mr Belderson (Planning Link Officer, South Downs National Park) and Mr Kennedy (Environmental Manager, PUSH Partnership) were in attendance to assist.

Ms Stevens explained approval to enter into a legal agreement pursuant to Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act and Section 33 of the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act, to secure a nitrate mitigations scheme at land known as Droke Lane, East Dean was being sought.

The proposed legal agreement would be between Chichester District Council, the South Downs National Park Authority and the owners of the land. Ms Stevens explained the SDNPA were included as a signatory as the land was located within the national park and it would be the responsibility of the SDNPA to monitor and enforce the agreement.

The agreement would allow the landowner to sell credits to developers for the level of nitrates removed by taking the and out of agricultural use. Each credit sold would be the equivalent of approximately 1kg of nitrogen per year. Ms Stevens explained the number of credits provided by the site would accommodate around 158 dwellings, resulting in 126.67kg of nitrates being removed from the Harbour.

Ms Stevens explained what was meant by nutrient neutrality and provided an overview of how it had impacted development within the Chichester Harbour catchment area. She showed the Committee the catchment area for the Harbour and highlighted where the proposed scheme was located.

The site area was 4.78ha and was classified as grade 3, 4 and 5 agricultural land. It had been taken out of active agriculture in June 2021; this had been supported by a signed declaration.

In addition, to securing nitrate mitigation, the site had provided an opportunity to deliver wider biodiversity gains. As a result, the scheme had been developed in consultation with SDNPA and offered a range of different landscapes including the infilling of hedgerows, wild meadow, and grassland.

Natural England had been consulted on the proposals. To begin with they had raised concern over the certainty of how the site would be monitored and maintained, however, following further discussion they were now fully supportive of the scheme and content that it would deliver the nitrate mitigation proposed.

Ms Stevens explained how the scheme would operate, she highlighted that unlike previous schemes which required an individual S106 legal agreement, credits purchased from this scheme would be managed through a planning condition. The proposals indicated the credits were intended for small developers who had previously been unable to progress projects due to the cost associated with nitrate mitigation.

The monitoring of the site would be undertaken by the South Downs National Park and was included within the legal agreement. In addition, Planning Officers would undertake an assessment each time an application was put forward offering mitigation from the site.

Ms Stevens informed the Committee officers from the SDNPA would undertake an annual site visit for the first five years, then a five yearly would take place for the remaining 120 years.

The following representations were received;

Mrs Kerry Simmons – Agent

Officers responded to Members comments and questions as follows;

In response to concerns credits could be sold to developments outside the district; Mr Kennedy assured the Committee the scheme had been designed to facilitate development in Chichester District and credits would not be sold to developments outside the district.

With regards to large scale development; Ms Stevens explained that whilst it was not possible to prevent the owner from selling all credits to a single development, the proposals indicated that it was not their intention to do so. The scheme had been developed to bring small scale development forward.

With regards to the long-term management of the site; Ms Stevens confirmed this was controlled through the S106 agreement in accordance with the management plan. It would be the responsibility of the landowner to maintain and manage the land.

In response to queries regarding whether run-off would be diverted away from Chichester Harbour; Ms Stevens informed the Committee the scheme proposal had been accompanied by an extensive hydrological report which had been reviewed by specialists at Natural England. They were satisfied that Chichester Harbour would be the sole beneficiary from removing nitrates at the site, and Mr Day in response to questions explained that they did not believe any runoff would enter watercourses running to Pagham Harbour (except maybe in an extreme weather event).

With regards to the lack of tree planting at the site; Mr Belderson acknowledged concerns that the preferred density of trees, as recommended by Natural England, had not been planted. However, he explained the overarching scheme would offer greater biodiversity benefits and had been developed in consultation with both the SDNPA and Natural England.

On the issue of monitoring and enforcing the site; Mr Belderson informed the Committee the sum provided by the overarching S106 agreement would cover the cost of monitoring and enforcement the site. It would be the responsibility of the SDNPA (as part of the S106 agreement) to monitor and enforce the site in accordance with the management plan.

In response to queries over the proposed level of nitrate being removed; Mr Kennedy informed the Committee a precautionary principle of 20% was embedded in the calculations. The principle had been tested successfully as part of a Judicial Review.

On the matter of the current ‘state’ of the Harbour; Mr Day informed the Committee that the most recent data sets were released by Natural England in 2020. At this time the Harbour was described as ‘unfavourable/declining’.

With regards to the impact on the Harbour from growth plans in the Southampton are; Mr Kennedy assured the Committee these would have no impact on Chichester Harbour.

On the issue of whether the Council were legally allowed to enter into such an agreement; Ms Golding confirmed they were.

On the matter of consultation; Ms Stevens explained that a consultation was not required.

Following a vote, the Committee voted in favour of the report recommendation to;

That the Committee approves the recommendation to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of land at Droke Lane, East Dean, and the South Downs National Park Authority to secure the provision of a credit-selling nitrates mitigation scheme. 

Resolved;

That the Committee approves the recommendation to enter into a legal agreement with the owner of land at Droke Lane, East Dean, and the South Downs National Park Authority to secure the provision of a credit-selling nitrates mitigation scheme. 

*Cllr McAra left the meeting at 12.57