Local Plan Latest

A new extraordinary council meeting has been scheduled for 17 November 2021 to approve the revised local plan for Regulation 19 submission: save the date!

Just to give an idea of how large a spanner the revised NPPF has thrown into the works, this is a rough list of what needs reviewing/updating:

• Sustainability Appraisal (to take into account 30 year vision)
• Viability Study (to take into account additional costs such as tree lined streets, including maintenance) 
• Transport Assessment 
• Habitat Regulations Assessment
• Ecology mitigation opportunities and impacts
• Housing Market Delivery Study
• The proposed housing trajectory

with a commitment to hold workshops with clusters of Parish/Neighbourhood Councils to discuss additional smaller site allocations.

All to ensure that the content of the draft Reg 19 Local Plan addresses, and is compliant with, all changes in the NPPF, including design and ‘beauty’, as well as setting out a 30 year vision for the district: phew!

Local plan stalled by UK Gov.!

Well, that was a funny week.  Just as Bob & I were preparing our thoughts for the big debate over the revised local plan, we received an email from the Chief Exec. to say that the extraordinary council meeting on 28th July had been cancelled!

Sadly this was not because he had finally seen the sense of the arguments supporting our earlier motion to delay the plan for 12 months, but because HMG had, the previous week, changed the National Planning Policy Framework to include a requirement, in para.22, that 'Where larger scale developments such as new settlements or significant extensions to existing villages and towns form part of the strategy for the area, policies should be set within a vision that looks further ahead (at least 30 years), to take into account the likely timescale for delivery.' 

So we have moved from 'delaying the plan would probably be illegal' to 'we have to delay the plan to meet the new requirements'.  How Sir Humphrey would have chuckled!

I am reminded of a memorable railway platform announcement heard whilst waiting for a London train at Shoreham-by-Sea station that went along the lines of 'Network Rail regrets to announce that due to a broken rail all up services are cancelled.  click'.  I suspect that HDC's Chief Exec. was slightly more measured in his response than I was on Shoreham station that morning, but in both cases there was no subsequent guidance on what to do next.  

So, for the plan, this means consulting our learned (expensive) friends, and coming up with a vision fit for a planning inspector: whatever that is - timescale t.b.d.!  

Housing - It's a numbers game - Take 4

Well, that's 'interesting' (with my bold):

'Many respondents to the consultation were concerned that the ‘targets’ provided by the standard method were not appropriate for individual local authority areas. Within the current planning system the standard method does not present a ‘target’ in plan-making, but instead provides a starting point for determining the level of need for the area, and it is only after consideration of this, alongside what constraints areas face, such as the Green Belt, and the land that is actually available for development, that the decision on how many homes should be planned for is made. It does not override other planning policies, including the protections set out in Paragraph 11b of the NPPF or our strong protections for the Green Belt. It is for local authorities to determine precisely how many homes to plan for and where those homes most appropriately located. In doing this they should take into account their local circumstances and constraints. In order to make this policy position as clear as possible, we will explore how we can make changes through future revisions to the National Planning Policy Framework, including whether a renaming of the policy could provide additional clarity.'

Extract from 'Government response to the local housing need proposals in “Changes to the current planning system” Updated 1 April 2021'.

Of course the obvious 'Mr Loophole' get out clause is 'In doing this they should take into account their local circumstances and constraints.' as some would argue that Horsham District has plenty of space (ie open countryside) for building on...

But maybe a peg to hang an argument on?

Decision time for the Horsham District Local Plan?

Assuming that, at its meeting on 23 June, council rejects our motion to delay the local plan process (agenda item 11), then the focus moves to the two cabinet meetings on 15 July and 22 July, and the Extraordinary council meeting on 28 July.  According to the forward plan, this ECM is where the legal decision will be taken to submit our revised local plan to further public scrutiny, and then on to inspection, accompanied by the public comments ('Reg.19', Item 6), effectively freezing our plans until after the inspector has commented, or legal challenges are brought!

As may be seen in the published timetable, it is still possible for changes to be made in light of the inspector's report, but will any major changes to the chosen strategic development sites (the current main bones of contention with the public at large) be made?  Who knows, but I would have thought it unlikely - but then, a few years ago, I'd have thought it likely that the UK would still be in the EU, so what do I know!

I am, of course, writing this on the day that the Chesham and Amersham by-election result has been announced, with opposition to the HS2 rail line, which is being built through the constituency, and the government's planning reforms, which could see more homes being built in rural areas, being cited as major factors in the overturning of a big government majority.  Sadly there's no prospect of any major rail upgrades, let alone resurrected lines, in Horsham District but, if our mail is anything to go by, there is major opposition to housebuilding, especially in the form of new settlements (near Adversane, West Grinstead and Henfield).  To meet the government's current housing requirements, it will probably be necessary to have at least one of these settlements in the plan - will that fuel similar election upsets in the years to come? 

Post Election, Post Covid?

For the second, definitely not (until much of the rest of the world has been vaccinated, unless UK border controls are dramatically strengthened).

The elections are over though, with noticeable national Green Party gains.  Locally, Sarah Sharp was elected to represent Chichester South on West Sussex County Council, and Gabe Crisp was elected to Adur District Council.  Both will have their work cut out as a 'lone Green', but I'm sure that they will rise to the challenge.  Not so much a case of 'history on their side' as 'forecasts' - we're going to need every green change we can employ to reach stable sustainability.  In Bramber Castle the majority of voters chose a candidate who lives out of the division, but that's democracy for you!

Back at Horsham DC, there's a new Leader (Cllr Clarke) with a (mostly) new cabinet.  What effect this will have on the draft Local Plan is yet to be ascertained, but Bob & I will be putting a motion forward at the next full council meeting to delay the plan for a minimum of a year so that the effects of the pandemic on housing / employment space demand can be better assessed.  This is based on the requirement for plans to be 'evidence based': at the moment all we know is that the evidence isn't there (AKA a 'known unknown')!

Mike was asked to join Horsham DC's Climate Change Group, comprising a mix of public representatives, officers and councillors 'to help draw up a climate change action plan for the Horsham District'.  Although the council itself has a plan to achieve carbon neutrality for its own emissions by 2030 (finance permitting), persuading the district along that path is going to be exceedingly challenging (with much larger financial issues)!  More on this in the months to come.

Why 20 is Plenty for Steyning (and Bramber)

By now, anyone living in the parish of Steyning, or those parts of Bramber potentially affected, will have received a paper survey asking for feedback on 'the idea of making the whole of Steyning and neighbouring parts of Bramber a 20 mph zone'.  There's also a link to an online survey which poses additional questions about 'possible further road calming and sustainable transport measures'.  The paper survey leaflet makes a good case for a 20 mph zone (but I would say that, having sat on the Steyning PC Community Committee that promoted the idea) but, as explored in the online survey, the philosophy behind the proposal really addresses the question of what environment do we want to live in, and why.

Undoubtedly, motorised transport (of all kinds) has brought societal benefits, but also societal costs, from pollution (gaseous and visual) via obstruction of the public highway by parked vehicles, personal isolation (difficult to interact with the world from inside a tin box with tinted windows) and lack of physical exercise (1 in 4 in UK are obese) to physical injury and death (just under 28,000 killed or seriously injured).  Much like the apocryphal (?) frogs in hot water, this blight has insidiously crept up on us over the last century, helped by a rejection of mass public transport in certain quarters (eg Marples / Beeching and their emasculation of branch lines to promote road transport).  Is now the time to reverse the trend?  (Regrettably most of the old rail links are now beyond redemption.) 

So why a zone, and not individual roads?  In simple terms, cost (both legal and physical) and effectiveness - Steyning, Bramber and Upper Beeding present as a  connected community, and that should include speed limits on residential streets and in town and village centres over the whole community, to avoid the issue of doubt.  Much is made of the lack of effectiveness, but in reality that is a community decision: if enough motorists keep to the speed limit then it becomes self enforcing.  (This will be reinforced from 2022 by all new motor vehicles having an in-built speed limiter.)

So, the choice is yours - Steyning and Bramber Parish Councils have recognised the benefits - do you?  (If you need convincing, try standing on one of the many narrow local footways and assess the passing motor traffic - would you rather be there, or in one of the moving boxes?)

If you need more convincing, then watch Greening Steyning's launch of their promotional campaign for a range of viewpoints, or head over to the national 20sPlenty website.

Green Homes Grant - R.I.P.

After a short, and ineffective life, the Green Homes Grant has joined many other  half-baked, central government, consultant run, initiatives in the great policy graveyard in the sky. At a stroke it also reduces government support to carbon reduction in dwellings from £2.5bn to £1.3bn, with the only bright side being that the latter (up from £1bn previously) will be administered by local authorities focussing on low income households.

One little irony here is that some of the 25 to 30 million dwellings that need improvement would not have needed it if the same central government had not scrapped the Code for Sustainable Homes in 2015.  That would have required new builds from 2016 to be close to zero carbon ('Code 0'), but some of the big housebuilders (eg Persimmon) claimed it was too difficult/expensive...  How much more expensive (to build)?  About 8% more should get you a Passivhaus, which would be close to Code 0.

Jolly glad that I'm not in Alok Sharma's shoes (President of the UN COP26), or is this a strategic move to ditch a widely criticised mess, in order that the PM can introduce another world beating path to the sunny uplands closer to the COP26 date?  (Me, cynical?!?)