Agenda item

The Chairman invited the Solicitor, Franca Currall to provide legal context and advice for Members whom sit on the Committee and have made representations on the Site Allocations Development Plan document.

Franca Currall, Solicitor, highlighted that Members are welcome to make representations. She noted that the Committee is not a decision-making committee however she reminded Members to be aware of their roles when participating in the discussion as it can preclude them from taking part in the meeting and potentially cause them to be pre-determined. She asked that, in the spirit of openness and transparency, Members indicate where they have made representations before they make comments.

Andrew Marsh, Business Unit Leader for Planning Policy, introduced the report which provided a summary of the representations received during the Site Allocations DPD public consultation and set out the next steps in the preparation of the Site Allocations DPD. He noted that there were just over 1,300 respondents to the consultation. Objections were predominantly from residents to the proposed sites however there were no objections to the site selection methodology and indeed no objections from neighboring authorities. He stated that the next stage is Regulation 19 which will be presented at the Committee on 11 March 2020 and then, subject to Council approval, will go through a minimum six-week consultation before being submitted to the Secretary of State for examination by an independent Planning Inspector.

A Member noted that site promoters have submitted 28 ‘new’ sites that were not in the Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA). He enquired whether all 28 sites are for housing developments.

The Business Unit Leader for Planning Policy confirmed that 9 are employments sites and remainder are housing sites.

The Member felt that it would useful to have a quantum of the number of houses in the sites in the report.

Judy Holmes,Assistant Chief Executive, explained that the purpose of the report is to present the responses from the consultation and the subsequent steps to be carried out. The next report will detail how the Council will address the sites that have been put forward and outline further work undertaken in response to the representations.

A Member questioned what additional transport assessments will be carried out as part of the Site Allocations work.

The Business Unit Leader for Planning Policy noted that the Regulation 18 Document contained a strategic transport assessment which assessed the impacts from the sites in the draft DPD. As noted in the Scrutiny report, the next steps section identifies an update to the strategic transport assessment to address comments made during the consultation.

A Member noted that the consultation exercise has identified additional sites and enquired whether the site selection methodology used to assess these sites will be different to the methodology previously used.  He feared that the identified sites would not get the same level of scrutiny.

Sally Blomfield, the Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy confirmed that the Council will be applying the same site selection methodology which was considered previously by the Scrutiny Committee. She added that the process will be transparent and open to scrutiny by the Committee at the Regulation 19 stage.

In relation to SA12 – 96 Folders Lane, Burgess Hill & SA13 – South of Folders Lane, Burgess Hill, a Member enquired whether a site-specific Transport Assessment will consider the 500 dwellings proposed at Clayton Mills, Hassocks as all the traffic will exit onto Ockley Lane.

The Business Unit Leader for Planning Policy explained that the transport assessment accounts for all current commitments (allocated sites and those with planning permission) therefore would include the site at Clayton Mills, Hassocks. The Actions to Address Objections listed in Appendix 1 for each site identifies  additional work that will need to be done by site promoters; this includes site-specific Transport Assessments.

A Member highlighted that he had publicly spoken against the sites SA12 & SA13 due to the concerns of the impact of increased traffic and the erosion of the strategic gap. He noted that the District Council and the Town have a considerable difference of opinion and questioned whether independent advice should be sought.

The Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy explained that whilst the transport work is commissioned by the Council, the work is carried out by specialist Transport consultants, SYSTRA, in close co-operation with the Highways Authority; West Sussex County Council. She added that Highways England had been consulted and did not raise an objection during the consultation. It was also noted that the work will ultimately be reviewed by an Inspector who is employed by the Planning Inspectorate.

A Member noted that SA20 – Imberhorne Lane, East Grinstead is the largest development contained in the report and has been ear-marked for housing for a long time. He expressed an interest in the transport assessment for the site and enquired whether it will be presented at the next stage.

The Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy confirmed that the strategic transport assessment is already available on the Council’s website and that the report would be updated ahead of the next stage.

A Member stated that he hoped the further report on SA21 – Rogers Farm, Fox Hill, Haywards Heath will consider the recent traffic collisions that have occurred in the area and an air pollution study. The Vice-Chairman confirmed that those issues were also raised at the recent meeting of Haywards Heath Town Council.

A Member noted that the penultimate paragraph for SA28 – Land South of The Old Police House, Birchgrove Road, Horsted Keynes refers to an assessment that is required to determine whether the development is major development. He sought clarification on the criteria that would cause a development to be considered major.

The Business Unit Leader for Planning Policy confirmed that there is no specific threshold for what is considered a major development and that it was based on a number of factors. Officers are carrying out this assessment ahead of Regulation 19 stage as indicated in the Next Steps section of the Scrutiny Report.

A Member noted fears from residents that their front gardens may be taken under the use of Compulsory Purchase in order to facilitate the Multifunctional Network (SA37). He sought assurances that the Council will not use this power to facilitate the network.

The Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy stated that the Council will not use that power and highlighted that the wording of the policy will be amended to give reassurances to residents.

A Member iterated the need for a cycle route from Bolnore Village, Haywards Heath to the proposed Northern Arc development.

A Member stated that the vision of a cycle highway may have concerned a number of residents on Theobalds Road and stressed the need for a balance between cycle users and equestrian users.

The Divisional Leader for Planning and Economy replied that the policy seeks to implement an aspiration of the Town Council and also sets out a number of options for safeguarding. She added that the safety element for all types of users will be considered and then reported through the Burgess Hill Growth Programme governance arrangements.

A Member believed that the narrow width of the cycle way would eventually need to be widened in future to accommodate the increase of users on the path, but the Council in the policy commits to not using Compulsory Purchase powers. He enquired whether the Burgess Hill Place and Connectivity report will address those concerns.

The Assistant Chief Executive confirmed that the Council has commissioned specialist consultants to advise on the route and that the Council will bring forward the initiative within the existing infrastructure. She added that the Burgess Hill Place and Connectivity project will indeed address the concerns.

Councillor Andrew MacNaughton, Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning, reminded the Committee that the Council was instructed to carry out this work by the Inspector to ensure the five-year land supply. He noted that the Council will soon need to review the District Plan and subsequently all sites again. He believed that the document had come a long way however there was still work to be done ahead of examination and adoption.

The Chairman then moved to the recommendation to consider the comments received during the public consultation on the Draft Site Allocations DPD and supporting documentation and to note the additional work required and the next steps ahead of the Regulation 19 stage which was agreed unanimously.

RESOLVED

The Scrutiny Committee for Housing, Planning and Economic Growth:

(i)          Considered the comments received during the public consultation on the Draft Site Allocations DPD and supporting documentation; and

(ii)         Noted the additional work required and the next steps ahead of the Regulation 19 stage.