Agenda item

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 suggested that the strategy offered progress to meeting Gypsy and Traveller housing needs but did not resolve concerns. The challenges for the residents of Pulborough, in relation to the site at Girder Bridge, due closeness of the railway line. It was suggested that the noise and flooding could be breach of their human rights.

 

Concerns around infrastructure across the District were raised, as the provision of many aspects were not within the control of the Council. The need for new roads, doctors’ surgeries, schools, and other important infrastructure was highlighted. 

 

The risk of speculative development and not having a 5-year housing supply, through not having a Local Plan was highlighted. The adoption of the Local Plan would provide certainty, which was felt to be important. Without a Local Plan, developments could be approved by the Planning Inspector, which did not allow for strategic decisions to be made in relation to development within the District. This point was made with particular reference to development at Lower Broadbridge Heath Farm.

 

It was noted that sites could only be selected from those put forward to the Council from Regulation 18 onwards, and it would cost significant time and money to revisit this. Due to the aforementioned risks, it was highlighted that it was crucial for the Council to have a Local Plan. The delay to the adoption of a revised Local Plan, alongside the constraints of water neutrality, had led to difficulties within the construction industry, which was important for the local economy.

 

The importance of sustainability and active modes of travel were highlighted, with further reference to biodiversity net gain. The transport strategy aimed to deliver safe and accessible routes to encourage active travel. The requirement for homes to be sustainably built would ensure progression toward becoming carbon net zero, whilst also offering a reduction to residents’ energy bills. The potential for a future Supplementary Planning Document was discussed, which would ensure the improvement of the quality of buildings, which could include the use of rainwater, as well as provision of community spaces.

 

Other elements of the plan were acknowledged, including the continued protection of locally designated green spaces, leisure facilities and developing inclusive communities. Members stated that the approval of the Local Plan would enable the protection of biodiversity, and the ability to ensure the provision of a wider range of housing. It was noted however, that there was no reference to the Arun River, and this was felt to be an omission, as many major developments would feed into the Arun River.

 

Members made the following comments in relation to specific sites contained within the plan:

 

·         Sandgate Nursery – this site had not been included in the Neighbourhood Plan and was considered by public poll that it was not a desirable site.

·         Hornbrook Farm – The amendments were welcomed, as safe routes to walk, and an extension to the riverside walk were to be offered.

·         Southwater North – The revised plan from developers was welcomed, as it included fewer homes, as well as allowing for the provision of a school, infrastructure, green spaces and affordable homes. It was felt that the proposed Local Plan would provide the opportunity for this Council and the Parish Council to work with the developer to preserve village community spirit, whilst delivering much needed infrastructure. It was anticipated that the lower housing targets would enable the incorporation of the required infrastructure. If the Local Plan was to be approved, residents were encouraged to engage with the Council through the consultation period to identify and secure further improvements.

·         Land north of Melton Drive – It was noted that the inclusion could create issues, as the site had been included against the wishes of the relevant parish councils, with reference made to previous planning applications and the response of the planning inspector. Further comments were made in relation to the transport provision within this area, and the safety of walking routes, as well as road safety and speed limits. There were also concerns raised in relation to the impact on listed buildings.

 

It was noted that changes had been made to the draft Local Plan that had not been highlighted. As such, Councillor Claudia Fisher proposed an amendment to the motion to approve the recommendations. It was proposed that the consideration of the item be delayed by 1 month. This would allow further time for scrutiny, review and feedback.

 

Councillor Nicholas Marks seconded the motion. Members debated the motion. Some Members felt that additional time would allow further reflection, particular in light of the imminent publication of the revised National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

 

A question was raised as to the advice that Parish Councils await the revised NPPF, before conducting a review of their Neighbourhood Plan, whilst the recommendation was for the draft Local Plan for the District to be approved. Officers clarified that the plan preparation process for local and neighbourhood plans differed. The Local Plan for the District would set the framework for Neighbourhood Plans going forward, and the changes that were understood to be due in the NPPF had been considered as part of the Local Plan preparation process.

 

The Leader and Cabinet Member spoke in support of continuing with the debate and vote at the present meeting. It was highlighted that the plan had been shared at an earlier stage with all Members. Workshops had been undertaken and Members were afforded the opportunity to discuss the plan with Officers and Cabinet Members. It was further noted that a month delay would not afford time to make considerable amendments. Should detailed amendments be requested, a number of months would be required to formulate the evidence base required.

 

It was moved by Councillor Tony Bevis and seconded by Councillor Belinda Walters that the vote be recorded, in accordance with Rule 4a.19 (d) of the Council’s Constitution.

 

FOR THE AMENDMENT: Philip Circus, Claudia Fisher, Alan Manton, Nicholas Marks, Roger Noel, Josh Potts

 

AGAINST THE AMENDMENT: Sam Bateman, Tony Bevis, Martin Boffey, Colette Blackburn, Peter van der Borgh, James Brookes, Jon Campbell, Mike Croker, Len Ellis-Brown, Nigel Emery, Ruth Fletcher, Chris Franke, Anthony Frankland, Nick Grant, Kasia Greenwood, Warwick Hellawell, Alex Jeffery, Liz Kitchen, Joanne Knowles, Lynn Lambert, Dennis Livingstone, Jay Mercer, John Milne, Colin Minto, Jon Olson, Sam Raby, David Skipp, John Trollope, Clive Trott, Belinda Walters, Mike Wood

 

ABSTAINED: Emma Beard, Paul Clarke, Joy Dennis, Victoria Finnegan, Joan Grech, Richard Landeryou

 

ABSENT: Mark Baynham, Tony Hogben, Jonathan Taylor, Tricia Youtan

 

The Motion was therefore declared LOST.

 

Further discussion took place in relation to development at the following sites:

 

·         West of Ifield – The impact of Gatwick on the area was highlighted. The concerns in relation to this site included traffic pressures, infrastructure in relation to the roads, recreation facilities, urban sprawl (particularly in relation to the villages of Colgate and Rusper), and the loss of a historic landscape. The loss of the golf club was also felt to be detrimental to the community.

 

·         Development in the Holbrook wards - It was acknowledged that the increased population would bring challenges to those that live within the ward. As such, the plans for a new train station, and the provision of additional schools, were welcomed.

 

·         Billingshurst - The support for the site in the West was acknowledged, with particular reference to the football club, biodiversity gains, and the nature reserve. However, it was felt that the site in the East was more suitable, as it would result in fewer additional homes in the village. Further to this, it was preferable in relation to the distance from the train station, and it was contained within strong existing boundaries that would restrict the opportunity for future development. The site in the West would risk creating 2 villages, with a loss of cohesion. It was noted that the village had grown considerably in 20 years, however infrastructure had not kept pace. The need for an integrated care board, and early start on construction of new schools was highlighted.

 

The importance of the provision of additional infrastructure was highlighted. The proposed Local Plan included additional schools, which Members felt were needed. The current distance many children travel to school had an impact on them and their families, including financially. It was noted however, that there were spare school places at the end of each year, and that proposals for new schools had previously been halted due to falling birth rates. Further to this, there was a school that was undertaking a consultation to reduce their intake, which did not support the need for additional schools. There would need to be a sufficient case to ensure an academy would take on the running of any future schools. The Head of Strategic Planning advised that an Infrastructure Delivery Plan had been produced, taking account of advice from West Sussex County Council on the need for new school provision, including the costs. West Sussex County Council had indicated that, due to demographic changes, it was anticipated that there would be a need for increased school places.

 

It was suggested that the policies contained in the draft Plan would put increased costs on developers, and as such developments may no longer be profitable. The Head of Strategic Planning advised that a viability assessment of the entirety of the Local Plan had been undertaken.

 

The need for housing provision was also flagged, in light of the number of residents on the housing list. There were also many residents living in overcrowded or insecure accommodation. It was suggested that there was a balance to be struck between preserving what makes the District a great place to live, and the need to make homes for people. It was felt that the Local Plan was key to creating stability to create communities for people to live in. The increased providence to Community Land Trusts was also supported.

 

It was highlighted that 'energy from waste' can no longer be considered as a low carbon source of energy due to the planned reduction in the biogenic content of residual waste as a result of separate food waste collection. The Member confirmed that he was grateful to have been advised that that the deletion of this phrase would be included in the list of proposed modification schedule to accompany the Regulation 19 Plan submission.

 

The Leader, as seconder for the motion, spoke in support of the draft Local Plan. The environmental standards, and building standards were highlighted. It was acknowledged that the housing supply targets were low, however this was considered appropriate at this time, given the impact that the speed of development has had on communities. The Leader advised that the outcome of consultations had been taken into account, and the views have tried to have been accommodated. The approval of the draft Local Plan would enable the Council, and communities, to keep control of development within the District.

 

The Cabinet Member for Planning & Infrastructure advised Members that throughout the development of the Local Plan, numerous concerns had been received from residents. The choices made were complex, however he advised they had been taken with strong reasoning. The Cabinet Member outlined the reduced housing target, which would lower build-out rates. On account of the lower build-out rates, the infrastructure to support new homes could be developed and new communities would be formed.

 

It was moved by Councillor Colin Minto and seconded by Councillor Clive Trott that the vote be recorded, in accordance with Rule 4a.19 (d) of the Council’s Constitution.

 

FOR THE MOTION: Sam Bateman, Tony Bevis, Martin Boffey, Colette Blackburn, Peter van der Borgh, James Brookes, Jon Campbell, Mike Croker, Len Ellis-Brown, Nigel Emery, Victoria Finnegan, Ruth Fletcher, Chris Franke, Anthony Frankland, Nick Grant, Joan Grech, Kasia Greenwood, Warwick Hellawell, Alex Jeffery, Joanne Knowles, Dennis Livingstone, Nicholas Marks, Jay Mercer, John Milne, Colin Minto, Jon Olson, Sam Raby, David Skipp, John Trollope, Clive Trott, Belinda Walters, Mike Wood

 

AGAINST THE MOTION: Philip Circus, Paul Clarke, Joy Dennis, Liz Kitchen, Richard Landeryou, Alan Manton, Roger Noel, Josh Potts

 

ABSTAINED: Emma Beard, Claudia Fisher, Lynn Lambert

 

ABSENT: Mark Baynham, Tony Hogben, Jonathan Taylor, Tricia Youtan

 

The Motion was therefore declared CARRIED and it was RESOLVED that:

 

i)          The publication of the Horsham District Local Plan Regulation 19 document together with the Sustainability Appraisal, Habitats Regulation Assessment and Policies Map and other supporting evidence base documents be approved for a 6 week period of representation from Friday 19 January 2024 to Friday 1 March 2024.

ii)         The submission of the Horsham District Local Plan Regulation 19 document to the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities (the Planning Inspectorate) for examination be approved, following the six week representation period, together with Regulation 19 representations submitted to the Council and the necessary background evidence. 

iii)        Authority be delegated to the Director of Place in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure to prepare a Proposed Modifications Schedule for the Plan with proposed changes that may be required to address soundness representations received during the aforementioned representation period.

iv)        It be noted that the final Local Plan will be brought back to full Council for formal adoption following the independent examination undertaken by the secretary of state.  

 

REASONS

 

i)          The recommendations are required to ensure that the Council meets the statutory requirement to carry out a Local Plan review, and to meet the requirements in the Town and County Planning (Local Planning) England Regulations 2012. 

ii)         It is both legally necessary and appropriate to invite public and stakeholder participation in the preparation of a new Local Plan for Horsham District. Part of the statutory process is to allow representations to be made on the Local Plan before it is submitted to the Secretary of State.

iii)        To enable the Local Plan to progress to independent examination and accord with government requirements to have an up-to-date Local Plan.