District News
Rother DC is one of those relatively rare councils with an up to date Core Strategy. That said, since the Strategy was adopted in September 2014, there has been little activity in producing the Site Allocation Document. We wonder whether local elections in May 2015 played a part in this. To avoid the planning lacuna, now four parishes have been progressing their own Neighbourhood Plan proposals; Rother’s attitude was initially very lukewarm and very few resources are being offered by the Planning Department.
Letter published by the West Sussex County Times, 30 July 2015
Sir,
Planning Inspector’s decision: an open door to developers
According to the Press Statement issued by the Horsham District Council’s Communications Manager, although Cllr Vickers (Cabinet Member for Planning and Development) is “disappointed” that the Planning Inspector, Mr Geoff Salter, has increased the house-building target for the District to 800 houses per year, his ‘note’ (in which he sets out his instructions to the Council) “does give us some certainty for the foreseeable future.”
This terse Press Statement is clearly an attempt at shaping the public’s perception by glossing over the unfortunate reality and likely consequences for the District of Mr Salter’s directive to the Council, and the Council’s unwillingness either to question or challenge it.
“Some certainty for the foreseeable future” includes the certainty that following the adoption of the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF), and notwithstanding the allocation of sites with the capacity to meet Mr Salter’s imposed and excessive target, developers will declare that the District does not have a demonstrable 5year housing land supply – and will seek more permissions at Appeal to build on unallocated sites.
Note that immediately the HDPF is adopted, the 5year housing land supply figure will be inflated by the addition to it of the shortfall in houses built since 2011 against the new and retrospective target of 800 houses per year. Accordingly, a five year requirement of around 5,000 houses seems likely.
Of concern, too, is Mr Salter’s instruction to the Council that it review the HDPF within three years of the Framework’s adoption, with, according to the Press Statement, “a view to identifying extra numbers”. This is an open door for developers to press for yet more houses to be added to the excessive target – and the inclusion of additional sites.
Countryside adjoining villages throughout Horsham District will continue to be at risk with consequent uncertainty for communities.
Yours faithfully,
Dr Roger F Smith
For CPRE Sussex (Horsham District)
Letter: Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF)
Written by Roger F SmithLetter published by the West Sussex County Times 9 July 2015
Sir,
Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) – Resumed Hearings
According to a press release issued by the Prime Minister’s Office, Saturday 4 July, “The Government believes that wherever possible, planning decisions should be made by local people”, and “will focus” on “what people care about – local roads, schools and homes that meet their needs. That means giving local people more of a say on where new homes go and what they look like.”
Power to the people! Plan to build homes in "gap" shelved.
Written by Michael BrownResidents of Hassocks in Mid Sussex are celebrating their success in fighting off a misguided application by developers, Gleesons, to build 97 houses in a strategic gap between Hassocks and Hurstpierpoint. And that success is all down to their own hard work in developing their own case and robust evidence.
Article: "Developers race to concrete over East Sussex countryside"
Written by CPRE SussexPublished in Kent Courier, 19 June:
Some years ago Lewes District Council embarked on a Regeneration Strategy, to identify superfluous council-owned sites that might be put to good alternative uses, such as the provision of affordable housing, or sold to realise assets. That seems an entirely sensible project. The council decided to seek a commercial partner to help it realise maximum value; again an entirely sensible precaution if the council itself lacked the necessary expertise.
As the project progressed, some concerns began to be raised. The principal issue was that, on the grounds of commercial confidentiality, the council refused to share with its residents, or even with its town and parish councils, which of the sites it owned were being considered for inclusion in its list of superfluous assets. The news did leak out that there were 49 of them, and there were strong rumours, not denied by the council, that the list included sites that were in current use in such roles as community centres, car parks and playing fields. The council steadfastly refused to explain or justify its plans and claimed exemption from FOI requests.
