We have fundamental concerns with the plan strategy – i.e. the decision to use an unconstrained Objectively Assessed Need (OAN) target as the basis for planned housing growth, despite policy constraints identified within the Sustainability Appraisal (SA) and evidence base. The initial calculation of the “policy off” or unconstrained OAN should be followed by an assessment, based on local evidence, of a “policy on” Housing target which takes account of the capacity of the District and the results of the Sustainability Appraisal. Arun has a high proportion of its land area where major development would be unacceptable in NPPF terms due to environmental impact on the SDNP or designated sites. Para 151 of the NPPF identifies that Local Plans must be prepared with the objective of contributing to the achievement of sustainable development, balancing growth with environmental and social dimensions.

It is unclear from the SA why sites such as Bognor Regis Golf Club and Baird’s Family Land West of Littlehampton were discounted as preferred site options due to constraints whereas other sites which do not score well in terms of the SA (such as BEW) have been included. This is also confusing as the SA notes that ‘the strategic sites were assessed in a policy vacuum. Sites were assessed based on the principle of developing the site but without any policy requirements and therefore potential mitigation measures taken into account.’

The lack of detail as to exact development site boundaries or likely layout within sites is reflected in the relatively high level nature of the SA and assumptions relating to each objective.  More narrative is needed to explain these assumptions.

1. The Housing Trajectory – can this be delivered?

The NPPF para 154 requires that ‘Local Plans should be aspirational but realistic’ We are concerned that the housing trajectory is not realistic.  The 2016 Civitas report 'Planning approvals v Housebuilding activity, 2006-2015’ found that of the 2,035,835 new homes granted permission by local authorities over the period, only 1,261,350 have been started and that this huge shortfall has accumulated because house-builders and developers are hoarding permissions to push up house prices and profits.

House-builders will not deliver more houses than can be sold at an acceptable-to-them profit and they will adjust build rates either up or down in response to market demand as they did during the financial crisis and the ‘credit crunch’ when build rates were much reduced.
 
The recently published House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee report, ‘Capacity in the homebuilding industry’, 29Apr17, found that to recover their investment, developers will be more likely “to build more slowly to maintain prices”. And, as is acknowledged in the House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts’ report: ‘Housing: State of the Nation’, 24 Apr 17, housing delivery rates are dependent on “the health of the wider economy”.

Arun’s Local Plan does not acknowledge that there is considerable uncertainty about the economy and that delivery rates are dependent on the health of the wider economy. Instead it seems to assume that economic growth will be sufficient to sustain required build rates in all years to 2031 when in reality there is considerable economic uncertainty. And, of course, Councils cannot compel developers to meet 5 year requirements.

Note that the House of Commons Communities and Local Government Committee report, ‘Capacity in the homebuilding industry’, 29Apr17, also found that “Perhaps the biggest challenge facing the homebuilding industry is the growing skills crisis, with the size of the workforce declining and the demand for certain skills growing” and that “In light of the existing skills crisis, we are concerned that large numbers of an already-stretched workforce face an uncertain future in light of the decision to leave the European Union” and that….

“Local authorities do not yet have the tools they need to make an effective contribution to solving our housing crisis”.

History shows that the Council will be blamed and held to account by the Government should house-builders for whatever reason fail to build new houses annually in numbers sufficient to meet the huge housebuilding target set in the emerging local plan. In which eventuality, the Council’s role as a planning authority will be undermined and much diminished - and the aspirations of communities expressed in Neighbourhood Plans are likely to be undermined. How does the modified plan seek to address this?

2. Meeting ‘Need’

The Housing Needs Update, prepared by GL Hearn, identifies a revised OAN of 919dpa based on 2014-based population and household projections. The data shows a negative natural change (i.e. there are more deaths than births) hence migration is the key driver of population change in Arun District. In 2011, Arun District had approximately 62,733 dwellings with 41.6% of all homes owned outright, 37% owned with a mortgage or a loan, 9.09% socially rented and 8.63% privately rented. This compares to a national average of 19.26% being social renters. The District has therefore considerably less social housing compared to the national average. The population of older persons is expected to grow significantly over the plan period, increasing by 55% (21,800 persons.) The Local Plan should do more to ensure the provision of affordable housing (“The Council's 2010 Housing Viability Study reports that there is no viability based reason why smaller sites should not make a contribution towards affordable housing”) and also specialist accommodation for older persons. The council should provide more information about how the Local Plan links to its own housing strategy, particularly increasing the supply of socially rented housing.

3. The modified  plan does not deliver the ‘vision’

The plan does not “provide for development in the countryside area which reflects its character and role as the coastal plain with green wedges separating urban areas, high quality agricultural land and environmental assets". The plan allocates great swathes of grade 1 agricultural land and green wedges for development (such as strategic sites at Angmering North, BEW, Climping, Pagham North, Pagham South, West of Bersted, and Yapton.) It is not clear if the NPPF para 112 requirement that ‘Local planning authorities should take into account the economic and other benefits of the best and most versatile agricultural land’ has been met. The plan does not encourage the "the effective use of previously developed land" or brownfield sites through its site allocations. According to the Authority’s Annual Monitoring Report 2014-2015, the number of housing completions on brownfield land declined from 53% (210) in 2013/14 to 44% (286) in 2014/15.  The plan allocates sites with high landscape sensitivity. The landscape Capacity Study Phase 1 (2016) and the Landscape Capacity Study Phase 2 (2017) identified Angmering North, BEW, Ford and Yapton as being of substantial sensitivity or value with a low capacity for development in terms of landscape. The Sustainability Appraisal recognises that developing Angmering North is likely to impact on the views and/or setting of the National Park and comments that “introducing new larger scale built development at the Ford and BEW strategic sites is likely to have a significant urbanising effect altering the character of the rural landscape, and eroding the gap between existing settlements. Development at Yapton would be inconsistent with the existing settlement form.” In addition, both strategic employment site allocations are also recognised to have a low capacity for development due to the potential impacts on the South Downs National Park (at Angmering) and from the erosion of the gap between the settlements of Bognor Regis and Shripney. The ‘Strategic Approach’ is ignored by the allocation of strategic sites.

Although the Plan makes a commitment to localism “We are also pioneering Neighbourhood Development Plans - our positive approach has resulted in a number of parish councils writing their own Plans. In the true spirit of the intention of localism, non-strategic housing allocations will be promoted by these Plans, thereby putting local people in control.”  In reality, many of these Neighbourhood Plans will now need to be re-written and “If monitoring indicates that insufficient residential sites have been identified within emerging / made Neighbourhood Plans to meet the requirement for Non-Strategic Sites across the District in a timely fashion, the Council will commence the production of a Site Allocations DPD in order to allocate sufficient sites to meet any identified shortfall, in accordance with the Local Plan housing trajectory.” The spirit of this last comment does not really reflect the requirements of NPPF para 17 that ‘planning should… be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area.’

We would like reference at the Local Plan hearing to be made to the number of individuals or groups who responded to this consultation on the modifications to the Local Plan. We do not think the consultation was long enough or well advertised. The NPPF para 155 requires that ‘early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide section of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area, including those contained in any neighbourhood plans that have been made.’ This Modified Local Plan may deliver the vision of the government but it does not represent the views of the community.

4. The Plan is not deliverable

The NPPF para 173. States that ‘Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.’

More information is needed about how the ‘policy burdens’ associated with the strategic sites will affect viability. The Local Plan states that “The Councils viability evidence indicates that on the Strategic Sites there is a wide range around the viability and even within the sites themselves. Affordable housing provision within the sites may be delivered above and below the 30% target to achieve the required affordable housing needs on these sites. The Council will expect planning applications on those sites that have been identified as being more viable to include a full detailed viability appraisal to allow the Council to consider any potential increase in the delivery of affordable housing.” This does not provide enough clarity as to the expectations of the council.

Roads

Para 177 of the NPPF states that ‘It is equally important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion.’ The Local plan notes that “In order to deliver the link road between the A259 Felpham Way and the BRNRR,a variety of funding mechanisms are currently being evaluated. West Sussex County Council Highways estimate the cost of the safeguarded alignment at £7.1 millions.” We would like to see further information about how the provision and funding for new road infrastructure links to the housing trajectory and what mechanisms will be used if funding is unavailable (such as CPO etc) recognising that the last bid for EZ status was unsuccessful and other bids may also not be fruitful.

Schools

Information about current levels of capacity at the District’s schools shows that there is little capacity with existing schools at or near capacity or oversubscribed. There is not enough clarity about where the secondary school will go and how the road network will be impacted by increased school commuting until it is completed.

Healthcare

The level of housing being delivered within the strategic sites would potentially overwhelm any spare capacity of existing healthcare facilities, and therefore the provision of healthcare facilities should be addressed more comprehensively through policy requirements that currently proposed by the plan.

Air Quality

The NPPF para158 requires that ‘each local planning authority should ensure that the Local Plan is based on adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence about the economic, social and environmental characteristics and prospects of the area.’ In 2015, Arun District Council completed an Air Quality Updating and Screening Assessment. It concluded that there are no areas likely to exceed the air quality objectives and therefore it was not necessary to designate any Air Quality Management Areas (AQMAs). Should this be revisited in light of the proposed new housing target?

Flooding and Drainage

The NPPF para 14 requires that ‘Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs, with sufficient flexibility to adapt to rapid change, unless specific policies in this Framework indicate development should be restricted.’ Footnote 9 which expands reasons whereby an OAN may not be met includes locations at risk of flooding or coastal erosion.

It is noted that considerably more work has been undertaken to understand the issues of flood risk and drainage throughout the district with work by JBA consulting and Parsons Brinkerhoff. The area experiences flooding problems from many sources, coastal, ground water, surface water, fluvial and foul waste systems. With the housing target of 20,000 homes over the plan period (2011-2031), over the lifetime of the plan, household numbers will increase total housing stock for the district by 30%. With the already well documented drainage issues for Arun, as evidenced by the latest SA, flood risk issues are shown as being of concern.
6 of the strategic sites have been identified as requiring the exception test to qualify for site allocation inclusion in the local plan. This amounts to 6400 dwellings of the 10,500 total for these strategic sites. For each of these allocation sites, the exception test is claimed to have been passed. These are:-

• Pagham South
• Pagham North
• Barnham/Eastergate/Westergate
• Yapton
• LEGA
• Angmering North

One of the areas where it is acknowledged there is little data is to do with effects of groundwater. Groundwater is recorded as affecting at least 4 of the strategic sites requiring the exception test part 2. Also, at least 4 of the sites sit within or are affected by Environment Agency zone 3 ‘high risk of flooding’ rating.

Downstream of the Downs, the topography flattens and geology is less permeable. This, combined with their discharge outlets being blocked during high tides, means that the area is relatively poorly drained. Parts of Arun are prone to specific flooding problems, including Barnham which has experienced significant foul and surface water flooding.  The total drainage catchment area for Arun includes the South Downs down to the coast to the south. Every land drain/river/reife ultimately flows south to outfall into the sea. The topography is flat which means that flow velocities are low. Areas to the south are affected by drainage issues upstream. Conversely, drainage issues in the south can affect drainage effectiveness in the northern areas. The catchment area should be looked at as a whole when planning for sustainable development and whilst sites should be looked at on an individual basis, their drainage outcomes must be looked at in the context of the whole catchment area.

It is recorded that in extreme weather, like that experienced in 2012 and 2014, flooding occurs in virtually all the above strategic sites, in some instances with sewer inundation because of groundwater levels. Some instances there is stream contamination as the outcome from a surcharged foul waste system. With the proposed strategic developments, a further 900 ha with attendant infrastructure will be created with all that increase in drainage management and loss of natural green space for absorption. Even with SuDS, the development of new housing on greenfield land would increase the area of impermeable surfaces and could therefore increase overall flood risk, particularly where the sites are within high risk flood zones

Examining the site by site substantiation of the evidence to include each allocation, we can concur with the instructions/methods listed for developers/other stakeholders to employ when submitting their FRA/SWMP for submission of a planning application and for the site construction aspects of drainage. The advice is sound.
However, we believe that the exception tests for the allocation of strategic sites as required by the NPPF have not been met.

The NPPF para 102 requires that

• it must be demonstrated that the development provides wider sustainability benefits to the community that outweigh flood risk, informed by a Strategic Flood Risk Assessment where one has been prepared; and
• a site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

Both elements of the test will have to be passed for development to be allocated

To comply with the NPPF, particularly in this district which has such a high sensitivity to flooding issues, much more work needs to be done to demonstrate compliance with NPPF Para102.

The FRA instructions to developers are sound, but they do not provide the proof that any of these 6 sites will be safe for their lifetime, taking account of the vulnerability of users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall.

To justify inclusion, we believe that at the very least, to comply with para 102, full, specific drainage feasibility must be carried out before the allocation is set in the plan - demonstrating absolute methods to be taken with support of full data on capacities, flows, drainage influences and effects to justify it would work. At present the exception tests say all the right words but with no measured proof that what is suggested could actually work.

Where there are groundwater issues, infiltration tests should be carried out to create supporting data for groundwater influences, accelerated surface water flows should be estimated from the development infill/ infrastructure taking into account loss of natural absorption, Ditch flows and capacity measurements should be examined. Having then established all that, it then proves/or does not prove the site can be sustainably drained with no effects elsewhere to validate plan inclusion or not.

More information needs to be included in the plan for the funding and management of drainage and flooding infrastructure. Currently there is little spare capacity in the foul water network and pumping mains to the Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW) at Ford, Pagham and Lidsey. As part of the wider waste water treatment network Aldingbourne Rife receives discharges from Tangmere WWTW and is currently failing Water Framework Directive standards. Communities within the catchment area of Lidsey Waste Water Treatment Works (Barham; Eastergate; Flansham; Fontwell; Middleton-on-Sea; Norton; Nyton; Slindon; Walberton; Westergate; Woodgate; Yapton) have been experiencing foul water flooding of roads and property which has led to the pollution of watercourses. This is caused by the sewerage system being overloaded, as a result of groundwater infiltration and surface water inundation of the sewerage system, which compromises its functioning, as it is not designed to accept surface water which should be dealt with by appropriate land drainage.

5. Legal Compliance with the Habitats Regs

We will be looking at this issue further before the EiP – particularly in relation to the recent high court judgement between Wealden District Council, Lewes District Council and the SDNPA (Case No: CO/3943/2016)

We believe that the commitment within 17.1.27 should also be included within the Policy itself, with the suggestion of the removal of ‘unless otherwise in compliance with the Habitats Directive.’

“17.1.27 An Appropriate Assessment shall be carried out in respect of any plan or project likely to have a significant effect on Pagham Harbour or any other Natura 2000 sites outside the District (where appropriate), either individually or in combination with other plans or projects. If after completing an Appropriate Assessment of a plan or project the Planning Authority is unable to conclude that there will be no adverse effect on the integrity of these sites, the project will not be approved, unless otherwise in compliance with the Habitats Directive.”

Found this useful? Why not share this: