Agenda item

Councillor Salisbury moved the item noting that at District Plan examination, the Inspector raised the housing numbers significantly and allowed the Council time to incorporate it into the District Plan through the Site Allocations Development Plan Document (Site Allocations DPD). He noted that the document provides greater certainty for the Council’s five-year housing land supply and although he acknowledged there are concerns, the Inspector found the sites to be sound, and each will still have to go through the formal planning application process before proceeding.  He highlighted the difference between this document and the District Plan. He also noted  that the Site Allocations DPD is a binary decision for Council to agree or reject. If rejected it could result in a worst-case scenario for the Council with no five-year housing land supply and sites being put forward by developers on an ad hoc basis with limited scope for the Council to refuse. This was seconded by Councillor Ash-Edwards.

Councillor Eggleston proposed an amendment to the recommendations due to the sensitivities around sites SA12 and SA13 on ecological, strategic and traffic grounds. The amendment also takes into consideration a letter sent to the Secretary of State from the Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex. This was seconded by Councillor Alison Bennett who highlighted the need for perception that the political and democratic process has been sound in this decision making. At her request, clarification was also provided by the Head of Regulatory Services that if the Council agreed a deferral was possible. He noted that if the document was agreed, the Secretary of State has call-in powers, and it could be open to Judicial Review, but it will have been approved by this Council.

The amendment is as follows:

To delete items 1-3 and replace with ‘Defer the adoption of the Site Allocations DPD to allow the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to reconsider the inclusion of SA12 and SA13 in the plan document as requested by the Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex on 29 June 2022.’

Members discussed the reasons for delaying the adoption of the document, and the potential impacts this may have. A number of Members raised concern over the decisions taken by the cross-party working group in choosing the sites to be included and the lack of opportunity for some Members to revisit those decisions. Those Members felt that the process and the document was therefore flawed and needed a pause to reconsider the options available.  Issues relating to biodiversity net gain were also raised as were issues relating to housing oversupply and infrastructure pressures.

Several Members countered by noting that the requirement for extra housing was determined by the Inspector and the proposals now being considered had been through a cross party working group and two public consultations resulting in it being found to be sound in the Inspector’s final conclusions. It was noted that if the amendment to defer was agreed, it would have an impact on proposed employment sites such as the Science Park which would lead to a negative economic impact on the District. The Council would also not meet its housing requirement in full, and a lack of a five-year housing land supply would open the possibility of speculative development. This could still result in sites SA12 and SA13 being put forward with an inability to defend them at the planning application stage, as developers could argue that the Inspector’s comments are a material consideration.

With regards to pausing the process until the letter sent by the Member of Parliament for Mid Sussex had been considered, it was noted that the Council could proceed to adopt the document and then amend in light of any decision made by the Secretary of State. It was also noted that the Inspector was chosen by the Secretary of State and therefore the request to review his findings could place the Secretary of State in a difficult position.  A Member cited the Inspector’s conclusion at paragraph 328 of the report as he notes ‘there are no soundness issues in relation to development management, uncertainties or risk and the plan is therefore sound in relation to these aspects.’ It also complies with all relevant legal requirements and issues around the Local Development Scheme.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the proposed amendment. 18 Members voted in favour, 25 against and there were no abstentions. Consequently,  the amendment to defer was lost.

Members discussed the substantive recommendations noting the extensive work that has gone into reaching this position. Ecological issues with sites SA12 and SA13 were further discussed, including requirements around environmental impact assessments. Several Members were unable to support the recommendations whilst specific greenfield sites such as SA12 and SA13 were included.

Discussion was also held on the provision of adequate infrastructure to meet the needs of the new housing and employment sites. Members acknowledged that some areas do face issues such as traffic congestion but noted that no sites were listed as a major concern by the Inspector. It is also possible for mitigations and infrastructure improvements to be put in place.

In conclusion, seconding the original motion Councillor Ash-Edwards acknowledged that planning is the most difficult issue for Local Authorities to undertake and although there are often disagreements, the Council has to work to assist the whole District.  He highlighted that if the document is not adopted, the Council will lose control of development within the District, as it will not be possible to rely on the policies and mitigations contained in the Sites Allocation DPD. He thanked past portfolio holders and the current Cabinet Member for their work in bringing the document to this point. He also acknowledged the concerns of Members who raised specific issues in their towns and wards, particularly noting the need to cooperate with the West Sussex Highways Authority with regards to East Grinstead and reassured Members that this collaborative working was part of policy requirements (and therefore protection) provided for within the document. He noted that there is a need to provide housing and that no alternative sites have been put forward during the process to replace the ones that have been disagreed with and reiterated that the Inspector has concluded that the plan is sound.

The Chairman took Members to a vote on the recommendations as contained in the report. A recorded vote was taken and the recommendation was approved with 24 in favour, 18 against and there was 1 abstention.

RESOLVED

Council agreed to:

(i)         Adopt the Site Allocations Development Plan Document;

(ii)        Publish the Site Allocations Development Plan Document, Sustainability Appraisal Report and the Adoption Statement;

(iii)       Give delegated authority to the Divisional Unit Leader for Planning and Economy, to make typographical and minor factual corrections to the documentation as necessary before publication.