Open letter to Mid Sussex District Council

Dear Councillor,

We are taking the unusual step of writing this open letter to all elected members of Mid Sussex District Council before you consider the latest draft of the district plan for consultation under Regulation 19 at the meeting on 13 December. It is common ground between us all that the district needs a plan, but the current approach relies heavily on greenfield site development, in Albourne and Sayers Common in particular. The recent decision by the inspector who heard the appeal brought by Croudace shows the weight the planning inspectorate are now putting on ‘the character of the landscape’. We think there is a risk to the current plan in consequence. We summarise and then elaborate on these points below.

1. National policy is shifting – ministerial guidance is as important as new wording in policies

2. These shifts in emphasis affect both the planning number authorities use, and the areas to be protected

3. In Mid Sussex, the inspector drew on these shifts in the interpretation of guidance to dismiss the Croudace appeal only two months ago.

4. Unless you revise your plan to reflect them, there is a good chance it will not be found to be sound.

We have set out some supporting information on each of these points below.

Point No.1

Although there are many documents which guide the planning process, the most important one is the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF is prescriptive in some respects but not in others, and in key areas allows planning authorities and planning inspectors latitude for interpretation. Changes in national policy may be reflected in revised wording – but they may also be reflected in the guidance on interpretation given by ministers to the Planning Inspectorate (PI). This applies, for example, to the local planning number authorities work to, where Para 61 allows a revised number to be put forward in exceptional circumstances.

Point No.2

New, consistent ministerial guidance has been issued over the last year. On 6 December 2022, The Secretary of State made a statement which included the following commitments: “I do believe that the plan-making process has to start with a number. This number should, however, be an advisory starting point, a guide that is not mandatory. It will be up to local authorities, working with their communities, to determine how many homes can actually be built, taking into account what should be protected in each area – be that our precious Green Belt or national parks, the character of an area or heritage assets” (our bold italics). He went on, “My

changes will instruct the Planning Inspectorate that they should no longer override sensible local decision making, which is sensitive to and reflects local constraints and concerns.”

On 24 July 2023, both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister set out their priorities. We should not be ‘concreting over the countryside’, because everything points to ‘a move away from the land-hungry destruction of natural habitats’. Instead, urban regeneration should be prioritised, increasing population densities in towns and cities.

At the end of October 2023 the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill became law. The accompanying text on the Department’s website says, “The Act will ensure the homes we need are built where they are needed in urban areas rather than concreting over the countryside”.

Point No.3

You have been told, no doubt, that despite such fine words the NPPF has not changed: the planning number must be calculated using the standard method without recourse to exceptional circumstances and Mid Sussex has no option but to meet its inflated target by building thousands of houses on green fields. But now you have a powerful, local example to the contrary. The prevailing opinion before the outcome of the (Albourne) Croudace appeal was that the decision would hang on whether Mid Sussex could demonstrate a five year land supply. On 5 October the inspector dismissed the appeal. She framed her decision not in terms of numbers, but the impact of the scheme on the character of the landscape – which she did not regard as special in its own right – and heritage assets. In fact she went further: in her concluding paragraph she said that the adverse impact outweighed all other considerations: even if Mid Sussex didn’t have a five year land supply (she found that it did), her decision would have been the same.

Point No.4

Here you can see ministerial guidance being applied in practice. And there is a real risk that, if the draft plan is not changed, an inspector will dismiss large elements of it, using the same arguments as the Croudace appeal inspector.

What should you do? There is some work to be done, but fortunately unlike many authorities your plan-making is well advanced so there is no penalty for taking a little time to make a plan that you, and the people you represent, can fully support. Your plan should demonstrate that you are continuing to focus on the development of towns, brownfield sites, and proportionate growth in rural settlements, and using greenfield sites only where it is necessary to do so, and in a proportionate way.

Yours sincerely,

WILD

(Watchdog for Intrusive Local Development)