Agenda and minutes

The Chairman advised Members of the sad news that Councillor Malcolm Eastwood, serving Member for Henfield had passed away. He reported that the Council’s sincere condolences had been sent to his wife and family. Members stood and observed a minute’s silence in his memory.

To receive any declarations of interest from Members

Councillor David Skipp declared a personal interest in Agenda Item 4 (Horsham District Local Plan 2023 - 2040: Regulation 19 Consultation) as a member of Ifield Golf Club. This did not affect their taking part in the discussion or vote.

Councillor Claudia Fisher declared a non-registerable interest in Agenda Item 4 (Horsham District Local Plan 2023 - 2040: Regulation 19 Consultation) as she had met the proprietor of land in Storrington that was allocated in the draft Local Plan. This did not affect their taking part in the discussion or vote.

To receive questions from the public under Part 4 Rules 4j2.1 – 4j2.13

A maximum time of 20 minutes, or six questions, whichever is the greater, will be allowed in the meeting to receive oral questions and answers.

In the event that more than six questions are received by the deadline (no later than 12.00 noon on Wednesday 6 December to committeeservices@horsham.gov.uk, including the name and address of the questioner), written answers will be provided within 10 working days of the meeting for those that cannot receive an oral answer.

In the interests of transparency and fairness, if similar questions that require the same or similar answers are submitted within the first six received, the first one submitted will receive an oral reply.    

Mr Trevor Leonard asked the following question:

‘A multitude of groups representing the Billingshurst community (which includes the Parish Council, the Billingshurst Sports and Recreation Association, the hugely respected Billingshurst Community Partnership, Billingshurst Tennis Club and importantly, a range of environmental and other groups including BilliGreen, Sussex Green Living, Save Little Daux and Sussex Wildlife Trust) have all written to HDC to give their support or preference for development to the West over East. Together these groups represent thousands of Billingshurst residents.  

Whilst developers to the East have consistently rejected attempts from the community to engage with them, the developers to the West have not only fully engaged but have entered into a legal binding agreement to ensure that commitments made to provide much needed community infrastructure are delivered at an early stage of any development.

Given this very clear community support and the symmetry between the requirements of the Levelling Up and Regeneration Act 2023, which requires new development to be “shaped by local people’s democratic wishes” and the Lib Dem 2023 manifesto pledge to “care about communities and their residents” and the slogan, a “Lib-Dem victory means the Council will be listening to YOU”, could you please confirm that you as a committee will not be supporting the Reg. 19 Local Plan as currently drafted by officers which proposes to totally ignore this clear community support and instead allocate land West of Billingshurst rather than development to the East of Billingshurst?’

Councillor John Milne, Cabinet Member for Planning & Infrastructure replied:

‘Thank you for your question. For clarity, a Local Plan is a matter for the whole council to decide, not just myself or the Cabinet. All the sites in the Plan face at least some level of local opposition. But at the same time, we’re obliged to choose at least some of them. So, from the start, it’s clear that not every public wish can be granted.

However, in practical terms the consultation has been very helpful. Officers have made numerous changes to the plan to reflect the concerns of communities across the District, within the constraints of national planning law. Many of these changes are detailed in appendix 2 of the Cabinet/Council report.

With any site, the primary consideration by far is that it meets planning law and stands a strong chance of approval by a national planning inspector at Examination. In the case of Billingshurst, while I note the claims that there is more support for the proposal to the West, we have received no clear evidence one way or the other. In the Regulation 18 consultation we received 11 supportive comments for the allocation of West of Billingshurst and 243 objections. The East of Billingshurst received 33 comments of support and 279 objections.

That’s the only formal evidence we have available, and it shows public opinion divided roughly 50/50. It was also apparent when myself and officers met with the Parish Council recently to discuss the Plan, that there were supporters and opponents  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO/62

To receive questions from Parish and Neighbourhood Councils, as an extension of Part 4 Rules 4j2.1 – 4j2.13

A maximum time of 20 minutes, or six questions, whichever is the greater, will be allowed in the meeting to receive oral questions and answers from Parish and Neighbourhood Councils.

In the event that more than six questions are received by the deadline (no later than 12.00 noon on Wednesday 6 December to committeeservices@horsham.gov.uk, including the name and address of the questioner), written answers will be provided within 10 working days of the meeting for those that cannot receive an oral answer.

In the interests of transparency and fairness, if similar questions that require the same answer are submitted within the first six received, the first one submitted will receive an oral reply.   

The representative for Storrington & Sullington Parish Council asked the following question:

‘Following the Regulation 18 consultation in 2020 there were 622 comments. The vast majority of these were objections, including from several Parish Councils and also from Andrew Griffith, M.P. The support, unsurprisingly, was mainly from developers. There was further consultation of PCs in September of this year. Speaking for Storrington & Sullington, we objected very strongly to the sites proposed for inclusion in our parish and offered alternative sites more acceptable to the public. We believe that other PCs were equally dismayed.

Given that the Government has stated that development plans should be “bottom up” can you please explain how you consider that this complies with that requirement and what changes were made to site allocations following these meetings? We were clearly told that our objections would be considered yet, certainly for Storrington & Sullington, there have been no changes in allocations since the previous incarnations of this plan.

We have a made Neighbourhood Plan which designates one green gap between Storrington and West Chiltington. The allocated sites lie immediately within that gap. The Neighbourhood Plan is the most recent evidence of what the public will support and has been completely disregarded by HDC. How is this “Bottom up” planning?’

Councillor John Milne clarified that there were over 6000 representations, as opposed to 622 quoted. On behalf of Councillor John Milne, Cabinet Member for Planning & Infrastructure, Councillor Sam Raby, Cabinet Member for Housing, Communities & Wellbeing replied:

‘Thank you for your question.

As you will be aware, Horsham District Council must prepare plans which are in accordance with the NPPF. Plans must be consistent with national policy and be based on proportionate evidence. They must also cover a 15-year period starting from the date plans are adopted.

Existing Neighbourhood Plans across the district cover the period to 2031. The new local plan, if agreed, will cover the period to 2040.  This means the Council must allocate a significant number of additional sites, or we would end up with a 9-year hole in the numbers with zero allocation. This an innate flaw of the planning process, as Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans have different obligations to be fulfilled over widely different timescales.

All allocations must meet NPPF requirements. As you note, we have worked with Parish Councils to consider whether the suggested alternatives meet the criteria for allocation. Where these have not been included, it’s because officers concluded they could not demonstrate the minimum NPPF criteria of being suitable, available and achievable.

I realise this plan contains sites which will contradict local preferences, and in practice it’s hard to see why this wouldn’t happen with every local plan. But we still incorporate your views where we can. 

For example, draft policy ST01 specifically requires an application must be supported by a Landscape and Visual Impact Assessment. In the case of Land North of Melton Drive, our strategy is to permit development but only in the southern half of the site, while landscaping the  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO/63

To receive the recommendations from the meeting of Cabinet held on 11 December 2023 and, if approved, adopt the recommendations therein

Councillor John Milne, Cabinet Member for Planning & Infrastructure introduced the report, and thanked Officers for their work in preparing the submission. The Local Plan was a priority for the new administration, and a revised version of the previous draft Local Plan had been produced. The revised plan included the following key changes:

·              The annual housebuilding target over the next 5 years had been cut. The constraints of water neutrality allowed a reduction from 1200, to 480, per annum. The need for new homes was acknowledged, as well as the challenges of absorbing a large number of new homes built each year.

·              The eco building standards had been upgraded, with the aim to increase the standards further, thus aiding the move to net zero carbon emissions

·              Environmental protections would be formalised and given legal enforceability

·              A vital contribution to fixing the national housing shortage, with the provision of up to 45% affordable housing, and homes for social rent being prioritised. Community Land Trusts would also be supported. 

It was noted that although brownfield was favoured, the sites available for inclusion in the Local Plan were all greenfield sites. To meet the housing target, West of Ifield, Southwater and East of Billingshurst sites were included, however it was possible to exclude other sites, that had previously been included. The sites had been assessed as most appropriate due to transport infrastructure, as well as the future provision of schools. The Cabinet Member outlined the reduction in housing numbers allocated at the West of Ifield site, as well as for Southwater and Billingshurst.

Councillor Martin Boffey, Leader of the Council, seconded the motion.

Members discussed the figure of 85 litres of water usage, per person, per day. It was suggested that the 110 litres figure was more pragmatic, as provided in the Building Regulations. It was felt this would promote a healthy standard of living. A figure that was too stringent could result in residents not being able to meet their daily needs. Further to this, it was proposed that alongside the limits, there was a need for behaviour change. It was suggested that the target for the number of homes had been reduced as a result of water neutrality, and that the higher number previously included had been calculated prior to water neutrality.

The Head of Strategic Planning clarified that there was a need to maximise the delivery of housing in accordance with NPPF requirements, and that 110 litres would deliver significantly fewer homes. The available evidence indicates that 85 litres is achievable. 

It was stated that some communities did not feel that their views had been taken into account, and that further consultation and review should take place. Some Members felt that the decision to be taken at the present meeting had been rushed. There was also discussion in support of the consultation that had taken place, with particular reference to the workshops.

It was further suggested that more detail was required in relation to the Gypsy and Traveller sites. Members  ...  view the full minutes text for item CO/64