We have been in correspondence with Judy Holmes, Deputy CEO of the Council and planning lead, following MSDC’s feedback to information on our website. We asked Judy if we could post the exchange and she agreed, provided all of her responses were included, which they have been below.
We were particularly concerned by the reference to communities making sacrifices for the good of the district. Up to now, Sayers Village has been promoted as an exciting, visionary project. Now, it’s implied that we must “take one for the team”. We are also aware that quoting the rural space reduction from 88% to 87% will anger people who want to be considered as a community not a District wide statistic.
Please read it and draw your own conclusions.
"Plan making is challenging and difficult. It involves communities making sacrifices and accepting compromises to ensure that there is enough housing for everyone in the District." Judy Holmes Deputy CEO MSDC
Introductions
I am writing with respect to the WILD website. I want to draw your attention to some information which you might wish to consider in reviewing your website in order to avoid confusion and to ensure it provides the most up to date information.
The key areas you may want to review are as follows:
Thank you for taking the time and trouble to look at our website and email us your comments. We’re delighted you have engaged with us, and we’ve set out our response below. What we’d like to do, if you agree, is to post this exchange on our website: we think it’s important local people can hear both sides of the debate, and make up their own minds. Please do let us know.
Further to your request to publish the Council’s response to your website, we would be happy to agree to this, subject to you including the Council’s further responses below.
The key areas you may want to review are as follows:
Thank you for your reply. We believe in open, honest communication and letting people speak for themselves, so we’ll post your mail to us and the subsequent dialogue between us.
Planning Rules “Ask them if they are aware of how the planning rules are changing”
The Government has made it clear that we must carry on with our plan making to avoid losing the 5 year housing supply. The residents of Albourne will be more aware than most how challenging it is to maintain a 5 supply and the consequences of not having a 5 year housing supply, given the recent appeal in Albourne. A link to the appeal can be found here. It is clear that the Government considers a plan led system is best as this allows for communities to get involved in the process.
There is no timeline for the Government’s proposals to be implemented and transitional arrangements will be in place so they won’t impact immediately.
Of course Mid Sussex needs a five-year land supply, and in the Croudace appeal the inspector found you could demonstrate that, so we hope that takes some of the heat off you. But the inspector also found that the impact on the countryside was the most important thing – even more important than having a five-year land supply. We trace that directly to ministerial announcements in the last year, and we think that’s an important shift.
We know there have been some statements in the media about potential changes to future planning laws. However, until these come into effect we are judged on the law as it is now. The Croudace appeal, backed by a developer with greater resources than ours, is an example that developers will take every opportunity to challenge us. As a Council we must always continue to plan for future growth to maintain a five-year housing supply. It is extremely important that this growth is sustainable and managed in a way that supports both the requirement set by central government, and our communities and rural countryside. While the inspector noted the impact on the countryside, the appeal was dismissed because we were judged at that point in time to have a five-year housing supply in place.
You write: “We know there have been some statements in the media about potential changes to future planning laws.”
We have made no reference to media statements. All the information we have used has come from the Department for Levelling Up website, the No.10 Press Office, or statements made in Parliament.
The inspector in the Croudace appeal had to deal with the three main strands of the developers case: an out of date assessment of need; a failure to demonstrate a five year land supply; and inconsistency in policies (para 121). She found the policies to be consistent (126), the most important policies not out of date (129) and a five year land supply (also 129). She writes, “Consequently, the appeal case is determined on the standard planning balance” (129). The remainder of her judgement deals with this, culminating in para 138: “it is my overall conclusion that the benefits that weigh in favour of the proposal would not be sufficient to overcome the conflict with the development plan and the harm I have identified”. It is therefore factually incorrect to say, as you do, that the appeal was dismissed because you were judged to have a five year land supply – the inspector actually goes on to say that that was not material to her decision. The concern copy recipients of your mail and this reply should have, is that you are finding in the appeal report what you want to find, not what is actually there.
A lower planning number “Ask them to press the Council to start work now on the case for a lower planning number”
The Government has made it clear that they will not be changing the way housing need is calculated.
This Council has consistently lobbied the Government to allow Councils to use other data sets than those mandated by Government. If we could use these data sets this would produce lower numbers. However, the Government has not responded to this lobbying. The way the numbers are calculated will not change. Residents must remember that our proposed Plan is examined by a government inspector before we can adopt it and it is highly likely that If we use a lower number the Plan would not be successful in Examination as we are required to meet the calculated housing need unless it can evidence exceptional circumstances, such as an island population or a large student population. We are not aware of any Council successfully securing the ability to use a different method to calculate need.
You seem to be ignoring the Secretary of State’s statement last December in which he said the number would be advisory, not mandatory – another important change, leaving it open to you to argue for a lower number under para 61 of the NPPF. You mention island populations and students as possible reasons, which clearly don’t apply in Mid Sussex: he mentions national parks, character of the landscape and heritage assets, which clearly do. You say that you’re not aware of any Council ‘successfully securing the ability to use a different method to calculate need’. Paragraph 61 explicitly requires current and future demographic trends and market signals to be used but allows you to argue, for example, about the significant area in the district which is effectively removed from consideration. If using this flexibility is what you meant, please let us know how many Councils have tried to do so between last December and your email, and what unsuccessful arguments they used – because they may, of course, have simply not made a compelling case.
Whilst there have been some statements made in public about the government’s approach sadly these have not been backed up by any change in legislation. Whilst theoretically the Standard Method of determining a planning number has always been advisory and alternative approaches can be taken, we know of no one who has successfully argued an exception. To argue an exception this must be supported by evidence and can only be agreed through public examination, which includes scrutiny from the development sector. For Mid Sussex the evidence supporting the District Plan does not identify any exceptional circumstances.
There is in fact a new piece of legislation, as of the end of October, which does promise to make changes. But we think that when you say the statements haven’t been backed up by any change in legislation you’re actually referring to the NPPF, whose only recent change doesn’t concern us here. But your argument contains a misunderstanding of how this document is meant to work. The NPPF is not prescriptive in every respect, for the very good reason that it could not cover every foreseeable case. There must be scope for interpretation to reflect particular sets of circumstances. Planning authorities were given a strong steer originally that, while exceptional circumstances could justify variation, they would be scrutinised very, very carefully. A warning off, if you like. But a year ago authorities were given another very strong steer: if you want to make a case for exception based on, inter alia, the character of the landscape, the PI would be directed to look sympathetically at it. Encouragement, if you like. And you have chosen to ignore it.
Basis for the Scheme “And this is why we think that the scheme will remain in the plan: not because it was carefully chosen after engagement with local people, but just because it’s big enough!”
To meet housing need the Council has had to change the spatial strategy, which means we had to consider the inclusion of development adjacent to existing settlements, where it will improve their sustainability. This is a new strand to the current strategy.
Sites were selected using a transparent selection process which was overseen by a cross party working group and a scrutiny committee. A link to the process can be found here under the Site Selection Tab
There was extensive consultation including a number of public drop-in sessions which were well attended.
We are confident that this scheme wasn’t selected objectively as a good place to have a large housing development; moreover, it’s there because landowners sold options to a developer who proposed it. From a resident’s perspective, it seems you might have adapted your policies to justify it.
We utterly refute WILD’s allegation that the approach to site selection was not objective, open and transparent. It is simply incorrect to allege that the Council has not taken an evidence based approach. The Government sets out guidance on how sites are assessed for inclusion in local plans and we have followed this guidance in the development of its site selection criteria. Our Site Methodology is available here. In line with best practice this Council consulted on the draft Selection Criteria.
The fact is that a developer who had bought options from a landowner put this scheme in, in response to your call. Your policies then appear to have been adapted to justify its inclusion.
Effective Consulation? “We will continue to make all the arguments against the scheme people have made before but we will be ignored, fobbed off with promises that will never be kept (look elsewhere: infrastructure promises are never kept!) and have to live, literally, with the consequences.”
The council has consulted on its proposals at regulation 18.
The responses can be found here. Scrutiny Committee will consider all the responses and proposed changes to the Plan when it considers the next version of the Plan at its meeting in November.
There will be further consultation in January and a public examination, where the plan will be independently considered by an independently appointed government planning inspector.
Sites were selected using a transparent selection process which was overseen by a cross party working group and a scrutiny committee. A link to the process can be found here under the Site Selection Tab
There was extensive consultation including a number of public drop-in sessions which were well attended.
You refer to extensive consultation and we have no doubt that you have done everything you believe you are required to do. But clearly not enough measures were taken to ensure residents were engaged and consulted. This is evidenced by the fact that most of the people we talk to feel ill-informed, despondent and passionately believe it’s the wrong site for such a large development. They feel their voice is not heard and that the scheme will happen anyway ‘because the Council wants it’. Whether procedure was followed, this is an unhappy community that feels neither valued nor supported on this matter. We think that’s a very bad position for the Council to be in.
We really do appreciate that local residents feel strongly about new developments regardless of their size. We have done everything we can to ensure that residents are informed and have the opportunity to ask questions and share feedback. Plan making is challenging and difficult. It involves communities making sacrifices and accepting compromises to ensure that there is enough housing for everyone in the District. In developing this Plan we carried out significant additional engagement and consultation events to share information and we will continue to try and ensure our communication about plan making is as accessible as possible. Further to the consultation we have made significant changes to the policies supporting the proposed sites in Sayers Common. We have long argued that the planning rules and the associated consultation is challenging, and the scale and complexity of the legislation can often make it very difficult for local people to feel their views are taken into account. The rules are strict and the scope on which people can comment is both narrow and technical. We wholly support those who seek planning reform, but in our role as the planning authority we must deliver within the rules as they are.
You refer to strength of feeling regardless of development size. Residents appreciate that housing is needed, but you are not hearing us! The grossly disproportionate size is the issue here!
Risk of plan rejection “But the Council are terrified of having their plan failed by the inspector”
This is because of the consequences of not having a plan mean the District is exposed to unwanted, unplanned, speculative development. When the Council didn’t have a Plan pre 2018 we had to take over 3000 dwellings at a cost to the tax payer of £720k defending appeals on five year supply grounds.
We can’t speak about why the Council struggled to meet planning requirements last time around (presumably with impact on taxpayers’ money), but this is a new situation with new information. Right now, we hope you would take confidence that the Croudace appeal inspector praised you and said you had a five-year supply – and take the time to produce not just a ‘convenient’ plan, but the right plan, which local people can support.
It is important to remember that the Council has a District Plan but it must be updated every five years to ensure it is not out of date. This means the Council must have an updated Plan in place by 2025. While the appeal inspector praised our five-year supply, as stated that was a moment in time and we must also continually plan for future growth to maintain our five year housing supply. Developers are already arguing again that the Council does not have a 5 housing land supply. We are confident that the work we are delivering is robust and more than meets the requirements that legislation requires us to deliver. Plan making is challenging and difficult. It’s not about numbers, it’s about people and ensuring that we are building communities, creating jobs, providing infrastructure, all whilst preserving our landscape by taking a sensitive approach to development. We want to be in the best place we can be to provide for our current residents and for generations to come.
Why Greenfield sites? “Rather than concreting over the countryside, the government will focus on prioritising building in inner-city areas where demand is highest and growth is being constrained”
The spatial strategy seeks to firstly maximise all opportunities to use brownfield sites. This is evidenced in the capacity study which can be found here.
We are a rural District and as a result there is a limited amount of land within the built-up area. Given the housing need numbers prescribed by the Government it would be impossible to deliver this on brownfield sites.
Your Reg 18 plan provides for only 45 additional houses in East Grinstead, giving a total of 1,814 houses in total over the period, and 235 in Haywards Heath, giving a total of 1,277 over the period. From our perspective, you’re not trying hard enough to find urban/brownfield sites, particularly when the Government is urging you to do just that. We also don’t believe the answer is to pass the burden of such oversized developments onto other communities around the district, but to plan for a number of smaller developments or argue for a smaller LPN.
As you know Mid Sussex is a rural district and therefore there is very little opportunity to develop in our towns. An overview of our current plans show sites proposed for allocation which clearly see the three towns and five largest villages continue to take significant growth.
As we have said before we understand plan making is difficult and challenging. The government states there is a need to deliver 19,620 homes in the District over the period of our current and proposed plan. However in working diligently with our communities and through setting detailed policies and criteria we will only see our rural spaces reduce from 88% to 87% whilst delivering much needed homes for people in Mid Sussex.
We’re sorry to hear your job is so challenging and difficult. But we do need to be clear: people build communities, not the Council; employers create jobs, not the Council; water companies, the County Council (roads and education) and, dare we say it, housebuilders, provide the infrastructure – not the Council. But it is your job to preserve the landscape by taking a sensitive approach to development. And by concreting over the countryside, you’re failing to do the one job that is yours.
General points
The webpages states it is providing local information to help people campaign against the Sayers Common allocation. Whilst there is a useful link to the Vision document and to terms used, it may also be helpful to include a link to the Council’s Development Plan web pages here and specifically the FAQs document which answers many of the question raised by WILD.
Finally, the website includes a helpful calendar of important dates. However, it doesn’t include the timetable of next steps for the Council in agreeing the District Plan review. It would be helpful if you included the key dates the Council is considering the Plan, as follows: Scrutiny Committee on 22 November; Council on 13 December and Public Consultation during Jan/Feb.
I hope you find this information helpful in ensuring your website reflects the most up to date position.
Thanks for the information. If you’ve looked at our website, you’ll know one of our objectives is to ensure local people are better informed. So, if you agree to this correspondence being posted, people will be able to follow your links and read your FAQs.
The FAQs published to help people understand local planning issues and government policy can be found here. These will be updated ahead of Regulation 19. We will also be publishing a video which will explain why we need to continue to prepare the new Plan and this will be made available if Council approve the Regulation 19 consultation at its meeting on 13 December.
As we have said before we understand plan making is difficult and challenging. The government states there is a need to deliver 19,620 homes in the District over the period of our current and proposed plan. However in working diligently with our communities and through setting detailed policies and criteria we will only see our rural spaces reduce from 88% to 87% whilst delivering much needed homes for people in Mid Sussex.
As indicated above, these aren’t the only points we could contest with you. We’ll be expanding on those for our response under reg.19 and our submission to the inspector.