HAYLING ISLAND
RESIDENTS' ASSOCIATION

We have Jonathan Raper to thank for the following substantial help to residents for making an effective response.  You can submit more than one response for example commenting on a different Policy number to your previous response: please make use of this material below.

The deadline is 5pm on Wednesday 9th September. This Local Plan aims to provide more protection to Hayling Island and so it is important to support it. However, it is not perfect and there are many issues within it that you might want to comment on.  

​

Two approaches for your own response/s:

1. Apart from suggestions below, the 2 maps with Policies 2 & 29 the focus, give you supporting "evidence" for the Local Plan which you can find within the Local Plan document itself by scrolling through to read the relevant details & apply it to your comment.  

​

Note that Policy 2 concerns the Settlement Boundary.   Policy 29 concerns Coastal Change Management Area.  

2. The new plan is 384 pages long and can be found at the following address if you want to read the details:
https://www.havant.gov.uk/planning-services/planning-policy/local-plan/building-better-future-plan

As it is so long and detailed we have read it and picked out some key statements that we think members might want to comment on. We are providing page and paragraph numbers for the quotes in case you want to use them when commenting. The list of statements below is in the order they appear in the plan.

Settlement boundary (map attached) (Page 37/ para 2.55)

"The extent of the existing built-up areas in this plan defines the settlement boundaries. These are shown in Figure 4 and in detail on the Policies Map. There is a presumption against new development beyond the defined settlement boundaries.”

The Figure 4 map shows there is no settlement boundary outside South Hayling and so this policy in itself does not protect against infill or extensions in Fleet, Stoke and Northney.

Langstone Bridge (Page 49/ para 2.78)
"land is safeguarded through this plan, as shown on the Policies Map, for: Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk Management Schemes [at] Langstone and Northney."

We assume this refers to the bridge. However, despite Hampshire County Council acknowledging its very poor condition and need for repair to the Rook Farm Inquiry, the current road bridge does not appear anywhere in the 384 page plan! This must surely be corrected.

Flood risk to Hayling (Page 233/ Para 4.227)
"On Hayling Island: b) Planning permission will not be granted for a net increase in dwellings or residential institutions outside of the defined settlement boundary, even if the site itself is not at risk of flooding, given the risk to the access route to and from the island.”

It is important that the Council can be sure it has the power to put this restriction in the plan.  Note decision immediately below ignores both Coastal Partners Coastal Management Plan & Hayling's recent lived experience that even now the bridge is vulnerable to flooding that prevents its use.

Rook Farm Inspector’s decision:
Para 19 ‘the risk of flooding on Langstone Bridge is low and the risk of a requirement for emergency care being required which is not on the island is also low. Taken together, the overall adverse effect of the risk of flooding is, at most, limited.’

Restrictions on coastal development (see map) (Page 243/ para 4.272)
"In undeveloped areas of the coast a) Development proposals will not be permitted, unless it can be demonstrated that the development specifically requires a coastal location”

The plan introduces Coastal Change Management Areas (CCMAs). Primary CCMAs are at direct threat of flooding and/or erosion. Secondary CCMA’s require access through a Primary CCMA, like at Eastoke. See the map attached for the large area of Hayling that this affects. Ironically, as the southern end of the bridge is in a Primary CCMA this would suggest the whole of the island should be in a Secondary CCMA. This is important because in para 4.288 on page 247 the new plan says:

"In both the primary and the secondary CCMAs, permanent new residential development is considered to be inappropriate and will not be permitted."

Protections for the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (now called a 'National Landscape’) (Page 253/ para 4.298)
"'Major development will not be permitted within Chichester Harbour National Landscape, other than where allocated within this Local Plan or where it can be demonstrated that there are exceptional circumstances and the development is in the public interest."

Most of the eastern coastal strip of Hayling is in the Chichester Harbour National Landscape, and so the protections put in place for this zone in the plan are important. However, there are doubts that the Council has drafted this policy correctly as the legislation does not only restrict development to “major development” and covers all development.

There is an early test case in this plan because the Council has made a housing allocation of the Horse’s field in Emsworth that is within the National Landscape. If this is not taken out of the allocation list after this consultation then the Council will not be carrying out its duty of 'conserving and enhancing the natural beauty of the National Landscape’ in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act.

There are many other aspects of this plan to comment on, but HIRA wants to draw these issues in particular to your attention. You can submit multiple comments on the web form at:
https://www.smartsurvey.co.uk/s/babfrepresentationform/
or just write an email and send it to policy.design@havant.gov.uk
 

If you are able to do so please do check the NPPF 2024 (not any other year!) online for paragraphs to support your stated views. Archived NPPF 2024

I do hope that you are able to use at least a few of these ideas/statements & that you are encouraged to make either an email or a completed online form response.  You might find it helpful to visit the Local Plan detail to read relevant sections for yourself.

​