Agenda item

The following question was received from Mr Batte

 

At the recent Stop Cuckstye meeting Jonathan Ash Edwards said, “we need to ensure we are taking account of the Government's changes to the planning system” and cited environmental concerns as a reason for "pausing" the District Plan Review. Please explain why these environmental concerns and the changes to the planning system don't apply to SA12 & SA13 and the DPD?

 

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

The District Plan review and the Sites Allocation DPD are at different stages in the plan making process. Plan making is lengthy and complex. All DPDs must go through two rounds of public consultation and an Examination in Public.  The Site Allocation DPD is at the most advanced stage in plan making terms. It has been through two rounds of public consultation and a public examination. The independent planning Inspector has found it sound and legally compliant with legislation. Proposed future changes to the planning system are not yet law, the Sites DPD is therefore unaffected by them.

 

In examining the Plan, the Inspector reviewed detailed evidence put forward by all parties, including ecological reports and assessments, and concluded that the sites were sound and capable of adoption. Policies SA12 and SA13 include specific requirements regarding Green Infrastructure, conserving and enhancing wildlife value and ensuring a net gain to biodiversity. These will all need to be satisfied at the planning application stage.

 

It is now up to the Council to either adopt the Sites DPD or not. In comparison the District Plan review is at a very early stage. All the evidence is still being gathered and no decisions have been made. It has not yet been through the first round of public consultation. 

 

The following question was received from Ms Green

 

If you as you said in January & again this month, you need to "pause" the District Plan Review - an agreed part of the District Plan process - why can't you pause (not stop altogether) the Site Allocations DPD until the new planning legislation comes in? This would not only benefit the people of Burgess Hill who want to save Sites SA12 & SA13, but residents of all the towns and villages in the district negatively affected by this DPD. Why will you not take this step, when the changes in law are coming soon?

 

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

Thank you for your question which provides me with an opportunity to clarify the situation.

 

Plan making is a very complex area and in fact it never stops. When the Council adopted the District Plan in March 2018 the Inspector stipulated that the Council must also adopt a Site Allocations DPD to account for the additional housing he had imposed.  The Inspector confirmed that the approach to be taken by the Council, to bring forward a Sites DPD at an early date, was sound.

 

Separate to this, the Council is also required to review the District Plan every 5 years. This review started in 2021 and the draft was presented to the Scrutiny Committee for Housing and Planning in January this year. 

 

The Committee resolved to delay their consideration of the Plan to enable officers to do more work. This work continues and, once it is completed, as resolved by the Scrutiny Committee, a cross party working group will consider the sites and any proposed changes to the policies. This work will then be scrutinised by the Scrutiny Committee. 

 

The Site Allocations DPD is a ‘sister document’ to our current District Plan and is at a different stage to the District Plan Review. As outlined in paragraph 36 of the report, under the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) the Council can only make a binary choice to either adopt the DPD or not adopt it.  Whilst the 5-year housing land supply has been confirmed by an independent Inspector, this assumes the DPD is adopted and the sites in it including Sites SA12 and SA13 will be delivered. Failure to adopt the DPD will place the Council at significant risk of not having a five-year housing land supply leaving the district vulnerable to speculative development, such speculative development is very likely to include sites SA12 and SA13. This is because now the Sites DPD has been found sound, developers will argue that it is a material consideration in the determination of applications irrespective of whether the Council adopts it or not. Should a planning application be submitted on any of the sites, officers will have to take the Inspector’s Report into account in any decision.

 

It is important to note that during the 7-year period prior to the adoption of the current District Plan, when the Council did not have an up-to-date Plan and was not able to demonstrate a 5-year supply of land for housing, c.3,000 dwellings on greenfield sites were approved. With respect to the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill the Government has stated it will not be enacted until 2024. In the meantime, the Council must operate within the context of existing legislation. 

 

Finally, I should stress that the Government is clear that Plan making must continue. In his Written Ministerial Statement in January 2021, Chris Pincher (the Minister of State for Housing) stated that “Authorities should not use this period [during the reform of the planning system] as a reason to delay plan-making activities. Authorities who have an up-to-date plan in place will be in the best possible position to adapt to the new plan-making system.”

 

Ms Green asked the following supplementary question:

By the time developers can challenge your five-year land supply the changes to planning law and housing targets will either have been changed or well in hand and will carry weight in any legal defence so why aren’t you prepared to take a stand at these sites and defend them from developers at this stage? Also regarding ‘Stop Cuck-Stye’, Councillor Ash-Edwards said we need to make sure we are taking into the account of the Government’s changes to the planning system and cited environmental concerns as the main reason for pausing the District Plan review, but you refuse to explain why these environmental concerns and changes to the planning system do not apply to SA12 and SA13. Even Mimms Davis has written to the Secretary of State today to ‘urge [him] to urgently relook at the  inclusion of these sites.’ This would give you a better supported District Plan reflecting the hard work you have done on it. We are not suggesting you throw it out, we suggest you pause it while these sites are looked at again and while change to the planning legislation comes in – so please can you answer that.

 

It was agreed that a response from the Cabinet Member for Planning will be provided in writing.

 

 

The following question was received from Ms Parlett

 

Objective 8 of your Sustainable Economy Strategy is to “improve, manage and promote biodiversity and nature recovery” and new planning legislation requires a biodiversity net gain of 10%. How does concreting over a rewilded, biodiverse rich ecosystem, such as SA13, fit in with your strategy, and how can 10% net gain ever be achieved by replacing it with a housing estate of 300 dwellings?

 

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

Thank you for this question. It is important to note that statutory biodiversity net gain (BNG) requirements do not come into effect until 2023. However, given the Council’s commitment to the environment we wanted to ensure BNG was a requirement of all sites coming forward.

 

I do not agree that Site SA13 will be ‘concreted over’ as you suggest in your question. The Policy framework for this site is clear that the development should be “informed by a landscape led masterplan, which responds to the setting of the South Downs National Park”. The Policy also sets out comprehensive site requirements regarding biodiversity and green infrastructure, including the need to provide a Habitat Management Plan which must set out how the proposals will conserve and enhance all areas of Habitat of Principle Importance (i.e. woodland, hedgerows and standing water).

 

The independent Planning Inspector, noted that the Ecological Delivery Report, submitted in support of this allocation, confirms that “there are no over-riding ecological constraints to development of the site, and that the proposal could deliver biodiversity net gain overall.” The Inspector concluded that any ecological impact on the site ‘can be mitigated to an acceptable level’ and therefore found the allocation to be sound.

 

The assessment of any future planning application on this site will have to consider how the detailed proposals submitted accord with the biodiversity requirements of the Environment Act, the NPPF (National Planning Policy Framework) and Policy SA13.  All of these sites must go through a rigorous planning application process.

 

Ms Parlett asked the following supplementary question:

Noting that it is brilliant that you have so much hope in the system as developers seem to get round it. When looking at some ecologist’s that come to the site – on their websites they quote that they ‘can help you get your planning through’ so we find they are biased. We know a screening application has been put through on the site, so they do not have to do a proper environmental study as well. You say they will not concrete over and they will go through correct procedure – how will you manage and monitor that. Persimmon have told us in writing that they plan to clear the site in Autumn. They do that to destroy all the biodiversity there so when it comes to putting a planning application in, they will achieve their 10% net gain as they will already have destroyed it. We know they have been on site. We are asking you to pause this tonight to stop this precious site from being destroyed in the autumn as if you vote to agree this tonight there is nothing to stop them in the autumn as it is their own site.

 

It was agreed that a response from the Cabinet Member for Planning will be provided in writing.

 

 

The following question was received from Ms Corbett

 

You want to build 300 homes on SA13 but there are already thousands of homes there.  Homes to polecats, badgers, snakes & threatened birds like nightingales, what will happen to them?  I am very confused as you and the government tell us you are protecting green spaces, but this is a very special one that you are not protecting at all?  Why? It really worries me and makes me depressed about my future.

 

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

Thank you, Ms Corbett, for your question. I am sorry you are concerned and will try and reassure you.

The Council, in delivering the government’s objectives, has a very difficult job to do: we must ensure that there are enough homes for people to live in whilst seeking to protect important natural habitats. Site SA13 is not protected in the same way as a site that is nationally recognised for protection such as Ancient Woodland or a Site of Special Scientific Interest or the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty. 

However, even in areas which do not have a ‘national’ protection, the government still wants to ensure that there is a net gain in biodiversity.

 

Site SA13 is big enough to ensure that areas of existing wildlife value can be protected as well as providing opportunities for biodiversity improvements, whilst still delivering the new homes. The Council’s policy requires developers to demonstrate how they will achieve this, and this can be secured as part of any planning permission. The Council wants to ensure that not only are there enough homes to meet local needs for future generations but that we also protect and enhance biodiversity. 

 

Ms Corbett’s supplementary question (put by parent, Mr Corbett) noted that anyone who has visited the site will know that a net gain in biodiversity is a fantastically unachievable and urged Members to pause and visit the site as it is teeming with wildlife. To think you can go in there and build for 3 or 4 years and not interrupt the wildlife is naive – how are you going to do that? Also, as there is talk about how the Council holds developers to account, can we see published evidence where the Council has some and metrics on how you measure and enforce that?

 

It was agreed that a response from the Cabinet Member for Planning will be provided in writing.

 

 

The following question was received from Mr Inman

 

Developers are required to deliver a 10% biodiversity net gain for new developments. Can MSDC and the developers Persimmon and Thakeham give a definitive, 100% cast iron guarantee that building on sites SA12 and SA13 will result in an increase in species?

 

 

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

It is important to remember that site allocations and plan making, and the determination of planning applications are two very separate processes.

The Planning Inspector was satisfied that any ecological impact on the site ‘can be mitigated to an acceptable level’ and therefore he found the allocation of the site to be sound.

 

When considering a planning application for Site SA13 the Council, will require the applicant to submit evidence to demonstrate how the Policy requirements set out in Policy SA13 regarding biodiversity and green infrastructure will be met.

Finally, it is important to remember that biodiversity net gain can, by law, be delivered on-site, off-site or a combination of the two.

 

Mr Inman noted that there has been no ecological survey before the site was selected and gave assurance that if development SA12 and SA13 go ahead, many birds, animals and plant life will go (citing an extensive list of species).  He asked if the development does go ahead, will the Council prove that there has been an increase in diversity.

 

It was agreed that a response from the Cabinet Member for Planning will be provided in writing.

 

The following question was received from Mr Brooks

 

Regarding the Sustainable Economy Strategy, is the Ricardo Action Plan complete yet? If so when will the report be made available? If not, then when is it expected to be finished and have any extra costs been incurred above the initial £47,000 cost?

 

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Economic Growth and Net Zero

 

The Action Plan is not yet complete. The first phase of this work is with the consultant and is almost complete which is to baseline our current emissions. That report is imminent, and the next stage is to bring it to Council where we will look at an action plan to achieve Net Zero. We hope to set the target towards the end of this year and once the target is set then an action plan will be in place to achieve it.

 

To date the Council has expended £47k on this work plus a further £4k to extend the contract. The extension was to take account of covid related delays. 

 

Mr Brooks asked that once Ricardo has finished the action plan, will that be made public, and can we expect it soon?

 

Councillor Hillier confirmed that the Council will be setting the target towards the end of this year and following that there will be the action plan. Everything will be in the public domain. All Councillors will have a chance to see it and comment on it and it will go through the scrutiny process. It will certainly be in the public domain.

 

 

The following question was received from Councillor Moore (Tandridge District Council)

 

Has the Council fully considered the effect of the MSDC Site Allocation Plan on local residents living on the Imberhorne estate and Felbridge Village?  

 

Local infrastructure is considered overstretched in capacity, namely the Star junction, A22, A264 and M25. Small village roads were not built to take traffic from large housing estates.

Felbridge rural village is being destroyed by urban sprawl with houses being built right up to the boundary.

 

Gulledge has two herds of deer and much wildlife with awe-inspiring scenery which I have enjoyed over 38 years and wish the next generation to be able to experience.

 

The following response was provided by the Cabinet Member for Planning:

 

As a District Councillor yourself you will be aware that Councils have a duty to meet the areas housing needs. 

 

This Council was required by the Inspector to bring forward a Site Allocation DPD. 

As a Councillor you will be aware the plan making process is both democratic and prescribed. This means any allocation of a site must be evidence based. This includes evidence of any impact on infrastructure and the environment. You will also be aware that this evidence is in the public domain. 

 

Specifically, regarding highways infrastructure, the Inspector carefully considered the evidence and has confirmed in his Report that he is satisfied with the Mid Sussex Strategic Transport Model and associated study and that it is fit for purpose.

 

You will also be aware that the Plan is subject to two rounds of public consultation and an Examination in Public by an independent planning inspector.  Following this the Inspector will either find the plan sound or not sound. In the case of the Site Allocation DPD the Inspector has found the Plan sound. This means he is satisfied that the Council has met all the tests.

 

Councillor Moore asked a supplementary question noting that Felbridge is a conservative minded village and building on precious farmland is an unpopular choice. If Mid Sussex exceeds its house building target, could it not preserve the beautiful Gulledge farmland and its inhabitants for future generations?

 

It was agreed that a response from the Cabinet Member for Planning will be provided in writing.