HDC COUNCIL MEETING 25 JULY 2013 – NOTES (Courtesy of Dr. Roger Smith, CPRE) Agenda Item 9(a) Report of the Cabinet Member for Living & Working Communities on the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF)– Preferred Strategy Consultation This is not a transcript of the meeting and is not a complete record of every point made by District Councillors (Cllrs) who commented on this Agenda item. Omissions include permitted presentations/statements from members of the public at the start of Agenda Item 9(a) and the presentation by a representative of the consortium Liberty to promote North Horsham development. Cllrs did not comment on draft policies covering biodiversity (31), environmental quality, the natural environment and district character (22), environmental protection (23), countryside protection, heritage assets (32). Apologies: Cllrs Jenkins, Skipp, Ritchie, Newman and Coldwell. Cllr Vickers Cllr Vickers response to two questions from Mr Stephen Coppen at Agenda Item 5, re North Horsham, included the following: Suitability appraisal looked at various sites. Must reduce CO2 emissions. North Horsham only site providing an opportunity for people to live close to their work. North Horsham predominantly grade 4 with some grade 3b agricultural land, therefore (according to Cllr Vickers) “not productive land”. Minimal requirement for strategic road. Transport Assessment is “on going” to determine traffic impact across District. Cllr Vickers response to two questions from Mrs Irina McDowell at Agenda Item 5, re North Horsham, included the following: Draft strategy document seeks to promote prosperity and growth of Horsham. Economy is at the heart of growth strategy. All (site) options have been looked at and believes this is best way forward. Cllr Vickers Agenda Item 9 (a) Opening remarks included: Legal requirement to produce an up-to-date plan with economic growth at its heart capable of delivering 5 year rolling land supply for duration of plan. Ensure infrastructure provided wherever development takes place. Cannot continue losing Appeals, resulting in only minimal contributions from developers and development in the wrong places. Aspiration and intent to bring communities with us. Document for public consultation only – it is not a commitment. Cllr Costin Infrastructure should be key consideration. Already a “considerable population explosion”. Some elements of infrastructure “wobbly”. Many people concerned about out of hours medical cover, time taken to reach A&E and Maternity Units. Lots of people nervous for themselves and their families. More development will result in more people and larger population – and increased pressure on services. Infrastructure must at heart of plan. Promises don’t always materialise. Everyone needs access to quality medical services and care. Having spent a considerable time around Health Services – staff struggling, swamped with patients – systems at breaking point. Cllr Holmes Thanked Cllr Howard for chairing many SPAG meetings and thanked Cllr Vickers for bringing plan forward. 8 months ‘break’ has resulted in draft plan being rushed in order to get Framework in place to resist developers. More work must be done. Cllr Cornell Astounded to be told that new hospital not required. We require a hospital. Cllr Matthews Delay/hiatus put pressure on those working on the draft. Hopes that at end of consultation, responses will be taken into account and weighed up. Need to take considered opinion on it. Cllr Patterson Welcomed integration of economy with strategic planning. First time this had been done successfully. Government has made it very clear that growth of UK economy is priority. Young people and families are leaving the District because of a lack of high paying quality jobs in Horsham District. Currently, more than 40% of residents commute to jobs outside of the District because of a lack of high paying quality jobs in the District. Do not want to be a dormitory area. Want families to be able to live together providing mutual support North Horsham an opportunity for District because it will be a ‘high quality development’ providing high quality well paid jobs for the District’s young people on their ‘doorstep’. Prosperity and quality of life will greatly benefit. Envisages that business park will provide highly paid quality jobs for Horsham’s young people who will reside in the adjoining residential development. His view is that without the North Horsham development, these young people would have to leave the District in order to find well paid quality jobs and houses that they could afford to buy. Cllr Haigh Concerned that preparation of plan has been rushed and takes comfort that HDC is not yet committed so can make better analysis and find better way. Must say yes to homes. How many young people are living with their parents? How many people live alone? Need to support our community and enable families to live closer together. Encouraging people to take on debt because of overpriced development. Need local employment for young people. Cllr Arthur Further work needed on plan. Account of any adverse impact on environment must be included. HDC committing to more risk than can be managed because cannot assume that that itl can make businesses move here. Hospital issue goes back a long way. Plan should highlight adverse impact on community re medical and health facilities. Many more people will be vulnerable health wise, cited air pollution and other factors/consequences. Implications of this proposal (North Horsham) must be made clear. Cllr Rogers Health extremely important - issues are being addressed. Strong relationship with Clinical Commissioning Group and will be working very closely with them in future. Cllr Crosby Surprised by preferred strategy. Why is North Horsham and employment flavour of the month? Why are is achieving 500 houses per year at Billingshurst and 500 houses per year at Southwater now priorities? (He is confused!!!) North Horsham may get 500,000 square feet of business space. Infrastructure needed in consequence of this area must be ‘modelled’. Cited as an example infrastructure needed to support Rolls Royce’s 300,000 square feet (Location not stated). Uneasy about options. Uneasy about options. Six colleagues have expressed concern about North Horsham. No reason to think ‘preferred options’ set in stone. Cllr Donnelly Future is Gatwick Diamond and London where employment opportunities are. Duty to cooperate with neighbouring councils (NPPF stipulates). Crawley can therefore expect neighbours to take houses. Waiting for Chichester and Shoreham “to have a go” at HDC. (eg take houses from them). Cllr Chidlow Explained that Cllr Crosby was mistaken when he said that 500 new houses pa were needed at Billingshurst and Southwater. Instead 500 houses were needed at both in period 2011 to 2031. Cllr Baldwin Hospital never going to happen because the country is broke. “It’s a con”. Must not give green light to developers. Cllr Lindsay One reason why economic development is very high priority is NPPF emphasis. Economic growth can get us out of debt incurred through borrowing £2.5 billion daily (?). North Horsham is the only option on the table with some economic growth. Cllr ? Every District Cllr has had opportunity to put forward alternative sites. Have had 2 and a half years of SPAG meetings. Draft is a “good document”. We do not have a 5 year land supply. Cllr Howard Little benefit in saying that preferred sites should not be there (e.g preferred sites) If object to preferred sites must come forward with alternative sites and justify them. Need this number of houses (11,500 to 2031) Cllr Vickers NPPF emphasises economic growth. HDC plan must emphasise economic growth otherwise will be rejected by Planning Inspectorate. Cllr Rae We must have conviction and be brave and vote for something that is unpopular but will ensure financial health of our district. Referring to North Horsham - “I don’t like” but “will back it”. North Horsham needed to provide HDC with income needed to pay for frontline services, which would otherwise fail. Forced on us because of dreadful state of nation’s finances. If vote for growth can hold heads high. But do not sacrifice our environment – NOT DEVELOPMENT AT ANY COST. Must demand infrastructure. Must ensure maximum contributions from developers. Cllr Burgess In 2009, came up with North Horsham parts 1 and 2, Billingshurst and Adversane as preferred options. If had gone ahead with ‘new town’ would very probably have been cutting turf next year (location not stated). A264 accepted a boundary to Horsham town’s built area. Roads are now at capacity. Highways Authority has advised/found that if build North Horsham road traffic will peak. Additional secondary school and several new primary schools needed if North Horsham goes ahead. Developments at Broadbridge Heath and Southwater will overload existing system. Estimates that a new railway station at North Horsham would cost £35/50 million – who would pay for it? Need new houses – 500/600 pa is a good figure – nearly got that now. Previously told 1000 houses North Horsham but this has expanded to 2,500 to make it pay – for the developer. Need 5 year land supply to stop Appeals by developers but North Horsham won’t help. Lets look at New Town. Was told at a meeting with Mayfields last week that it would take 5 years to build. Can’t support the draft plan because only one option offered. Need to look at other options. Cllr Chidlow Congratulated Cllr Vickers, Cllr Howard et al. Draft sets out thorny and complex issues and will deliver “whilst protecting the environment”. Concentrate on principles. One of most difficult issues is that real power on planning matters rests with Central Government through the Planning Inspectorate. Developers will Appeal when council refuses applications. HDC in weak position because lacks local plan. Often costs have often been awarded against HDC over past 2 years. Now we have NPPF – presumption in favour of sustainable development. Until we have new plan and are inline with SE Plan numbers HDC likely to lose Appeals. HDC behind in meeting SE Plan target. Start of a long process. “Not entirely happy” with “a lot about the document” including ‘circa’ (?) house numbers and “serious erosion of affordable housing “numbers. But “can’t see any viable alternative” – “need to be realistic”. Do well not to lose sight of developers’ main motive – is maximum profit. Communities do not want large scale development – but it will be imposed. “No doubt” (communities and or environment?) “will be damaged”. Principles of planning committees must be damage limitation and provision of affordable homes. Can’t see any better alternative. Do not like it BUT WILL NOT OPPOSE IT. Cllr Arthur Public needs to know how preferred options were decided and what other options were considered and why they were rejected. Understands that Infrastructure Plan will be prepared and costs will be known after local plan agreed. As yet don’t know whether infrastructure funding (CIL?) will be sufficient and therefore whether local plan is viable. Government has signalled to developers to go ahead with speculative applications. Unelected Planning Inspectorate expects councils to use SE Plan targets to predict future build rate without regard to the economic cycle. In Horsham district Inspectorate ignores the 7000 permissions when deciding appeals – instead presumes failure to meet SE Plan target. IF WE DON’T CONFRONT THIS ISSUE WE WILL REMAIN BEHIND. Must tell Inspector facts. Stop pretending that we can meet SE Plan targets/projections. Proposed to Chair that Council should do that. (AT end of meeting Cllr Arthur told me that he would follow up this proposal with Chairman) Cllr Holmes A few important issues on which more work required Must ensure appropriate number of affordable homes are built. Need greater clarity on the 240 homes. Latter must stay in the local plan. Reduction from 40% to 35% only acceptable if proportion of social housing increased. Must have market housing at prices that young people can afford. Must ensure that we do get jobs. Is North Horsham’s 3000 jobs sufficient – are more needed? Is 500,000 square feet sufficient for the business park? For N Horsham development to be viable: Must ensure N Horsham residents can access town centre. Need commitment on bus service. Need adequate and affordable parking in centre of Horsham town. Need to improve traffic flow. Policy 14 should refer to this. Cllr Mitchell Urban development extends from London to Ifield as is apparent when travelling by rail Horsham to London. A264 protects ‘strategic gap’ between Horsham’s built area and Ifield. This gap made Horsham unique and a desirable place to live. Countryside is “our unique selling point”. Contrary to Liberty representative’s view proposed development will be ‘soulless’. Liberty intends large supermarket to meet needs of residents of proposed North Horsham development. Residents won’t have ready access to shops in Horsham town and will be dependent on supermarket. Told we must support the draft Plan because we are “going for growth” N Horsham development would not be as successful (in attracting businesses to the site) as Liberty thinks because: Horsham is not a prime location for offices/business – it is overshadowed by Crawley/Gatwick and South London labour market. Cllr Kitchen Plan flawed and will not support it . Not sensible to breach A264 Not a ‘consultation’ because no options offered other than those identified in the plan. There are brownfield sites in the District – good yards and post office sites – A24, which could be developed instead. Plan is premature because of Gatwick second runway with 40,000 new jobs claimed. Said “London Borough of Horsham” in prospect. Cllr O’Connell Local plan will provide steer for PC’s preparing Neighbourhood Plans. Henfield – 500 new houses – 10% increase in population, likewise at Billingshurst and Southwater. Infrastructure 20 times worse south of Horsham than north of Horsham. Knows we have to have this development. Referred to recent public meeting at Henfield where no one wanted more houses, but at end of meting a lady said “we need new houses for elderly people”. When we look at the local plan we need to ensure that we get right mix (INDICATING THAT CLLRS HAVE YET TO DO THIS) Cllr Lindsay Problem is – where are the realistic alternatives. Gatwick Diamond is the primary growth area. Horsham is inside it and will have to take significant development in consequence. He then gave past % growth figures for Horsham, Billingshurst and Southwater. Lots of development foisted on small villages, which are now larger and in some instances have become towns. Billingshurst and Southwater are at southern edge of diamond and are totally unsuitable. 65% of Billingshurst’s residents travel to work by car despite the railway station. Billingshurst’s residents are car dependent. More development at Billingshurst will increase car usage. Horsham, which has much of the infrastructure needed, has not taken its share of development. Should bear these points in mind. Cllr ? My Ward has 1500 houses approved with additional 2500 in prospect (North Horsham). ‘Sold’ to us as good news (by Liberty and Cllr Vickers and authors of the Plan) but in reality is not: Crowded roads No plans for improved health care Insufficient schools “Not sure” that this is a ‘consultation’. If people of Horsham say we do not want the 2,500 house – I will vote against it Cllr Dawe Members need to consider what is viable and isn’t viable. Have to face a Government Inspector who will look at the NPPF, which requires economic growth. Have looked at other Council’s local plans and now know what the Inspector will expect when he examines HDC’s plan. Inspector will reject plan if insufficient economic growth. Not our test – it is the Government who tests. If disagree with the preferred sites, must put forward viable alternatives. Cant talk about building new town if other councils say no. Cllr Croft Will support North Horsham because can’t see a viable alternative. Opportunity to receive infrastructure. Will set bar high for infrastructure. Will visit Libertuy’s development in Kent to see if it is what we want (MY THOUGHT SHE AND OTHER COUNCILLORS SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE NOW) Not development at any cost. Under pressure to meet growing housing need because of increasing elderly population (MY THOUGHTS: OVER SIMPLISTIC – CLEARLY HAS NO UNDERSTANDING OF FACTORS) Cllr Breacher Believes every avenue considered. Belives North Horsham is deliverable. Disappointed Billingshurst is in plan. Need plan in place to prevent adhoc applications. Must protect our countryside as best we can. Hopes that Planning Inspectorate will give greater weight to our plan (PRESUMABY WHEN CONSIDERING APPEALS?) Cllr Donnelly Excited by new market town concept (presumably ‘Mayfields),which looked viable but was “caboched by another Council.” In past Governments have failed to to provide infrastructure but now there is Heathrow third runway, Gatwick two and probably three runways, and HS2. HDC has got to have vision and sense of what the future is. Local Plan will protect District’s economy. New business park will secure HDC an income for future. Enjoyed the Liberty promotion. Business opportunities are Gatwick and the ‘diamond’ – and London. The draft plan has the best options available. Cllr Costin Of course economic growth is essential. When she was young Horsham was rural. Like Billingshurst, Horsham was surrounded by fields, which have since been built on, but Horsham has retained its character. North Horsham would change this. It will create more traffic. Took her an hour to drive her mother to Redhill Hospital. Hospital is oversubscribed. No plans for new hospital. Where will income from business park go? Need to look at provision of health care in Horsham. Horsham’s hospital under threat. Horsham’s police station has gone. We don’t have sufficient infrastructure. Cllr Arthur No chance that Government will fund a new hospital. We will need to consider alternatives – including having more ‘First Responders’ and more ambulances. Sure that Cllr Rogers will tell us this. Cllr Crosby Commenting on Cllr Lindsay’s views – Billingshurst’s growth not without benefit:- new bypass, sports centre etc – all came from development. Southwater – there growth has given the village a medical centre and a shopping centre - and in the future a school. In Billingshurst shopping and parking is a significant problem. Money needed to make improvements will only come from development. Southwater has youngest structure and needs a new secondary school. Southwater’s children are making a 1000 journeys per day to schools outside of Southwater (My comment: Cllr Crosby seems to invent fictitious ‘statistics’ to support his views). Won’t get benefits without development. Cllr Chidlow Pointed out that Cllr Crosby was mistaken. – there was no support from parents for a new secondary school at Southwater. Cllr Vickers Required by Government to plan for growth. Plan will be rejected if it does not provide for economic growth. North Horsham is the only option that would attract and accommodate business. She and Barbara Child will answer all queries raised Cllr Vickers Currently producing an infrastructure plan. Cllr Holmes Must get infrastructure and affordable homes. To ensure that we get infrastructure and affordable homes, HDC must have a team that can match that of the developers (MY COMMENT: IMPLIES THAT HDC CURRENTLY HAS A WEAK AND INEFFECTIVE TEAM). Cllr Arthur Re Climate Change Should not use arbitrary targets to reduce emissions without understanding costs. Cited increasing fuel poverty and adverse consequences for business. Need intelligently agreed options. Cllr O’Connell Re Climate Change Provision of new railway station at North Horsham should be conditional on granting planning permission. Don’t want to go ahead and then find that we don’t get it. Cllr Lindsay Re Climate Change Referring to North Horsham, putting houses close to where people work will reduce CO2 emissions. Insulation in houses, too, will go along way to addressing key issues. Cllr Chowen Railway station north of Horsham, an opportunity for a fast service to central London. Railway company has yet to be consulted. Economic impact of development perhaps taking precedent over the environment. Hopes Liberty will build houses with designs that “would sit” (in keeping) with North Horsham’s semi-rural area – not urban designs. Referred to houses now being built at Broadbridge Heath, which he described as being urban and cramped. Cllr Chidlow Re Climate Change Cleaner and affordable public transport is an alternative the private car use. If we are serious about reducing car usage should consider looking at the economics of subsidising public transport. Cllr Burgess Re Climate Change Would like to support insulation and solar panels because new houses still being built at Energy Level 3. Nothing being done about grey water. Serious doubts that HDC can insist that Liberty pay for a new railway station North of Horsham. Doubts whether station will be provided. Cllr Curnock Referring to Broadbridge Heath development. After allocating a specific number of houses to be built, became evident that areas of the strategic site were unsuitable for development. Developer had no choice but to increase the density of houses built on the site. We must ensure that land “available for development” will “deliver the type of community and environment that we want”. All but 5 of the Councillors present voted in support of recommendation that the HDPF consultation document be carried. The 5 exceptions abstained. Dr R F Smith 28 July 2013
Posted on: Tue, 30 Jul 2013 11:17:50 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015