WILD’s Regulation 19 Response - WILD Albourne and Sayers Common

1. Introduction

1.1 This document constitutes the response by WILD (Watchdog for Intrusive Local Development) to the consultation under Regulation 19 concerning Mid Sussex’s District Plan (the local plan). We are a group of residents who have come together to make representations about the site allocation designated as DPSC3: Land to the south of Reeds Lane, Sayers Common, which proposes a development of 2,000 dwellings on green fields between the two villages of Albourne and Sayers Common. We also wish to challenge the allocations DPSC4,5,6 &7 in Sayers Common.

1.2 We agree that Mid Sussex must have a district plan and we accept, too, that such a plan is likely to require housing development in the two parishes of Albourne and Hurstpierpoint and Sayers Common – and that some green field site development here, as well as elsewhere in the district, may be necessary. But such development should be limited, and proportionate, and sustainable, and included in the plan only when all other efforts to avoid concreting over the countryside have been exhausted.

1.3 Our contention is that DPSC3 should be removed from the plan because it is unsustainable; in conflict with the authority’s own stated strategy; at odds with national policy; in terms of the standard planning balance will do more damage to the character of the landscape than is justified; undeliverable on the terms proposed; and part of a plan which in its current form does not meet the ‘positively prepared’ test.

1.4 The allocations DPSC4,5,6&7 are not justified because together they would damage the integrity of the village and are undeliverable, and therefore not effective, because they would exacerbate flooding and drainage problems without clear remedy.

1.5 To demonstrate this with reference to the four tests of soundness, we have provided a summary narrative of our case below. We then provide more detail in the sections which follow, and backup information in a series of appendices. In the final section of our submission we identify what work would be needed to produce a sound plan.

2. Summary

2.1 The preferred option in the sustainability appraisal (Option 2) proposes that the bulk of the required housing will be achieved principally by the development of a number of large green field sites. This is in direct opposition to the shift in national housing policy which has been announced by the Secretary of State for Housing and the Prime Minister. In this sense, therefore, the plan does not meet NPPF guidance that it should follow not only the NPPF, but also other statements of national planning policy.

2.2 DPSC3 has been selected in accordance with this strategic option. The claim to sustainability for this green field site rests on the notion that it will be developed in line with the principles of the ‘20-minute neighbourhood’, as described in the guide published by the Town and Country Planning Association (TCPA), following the authority’s strategy to adopt these principles in large developments such as this. What the TCPA guide reveals, however, is that this concept applies only to growth and regeneration in an urban setting, not to rural locations at some distance from the nearest town. Not surprisingly, therefore, the planning authority has nothing to offer in support of this rationale; and it is a requirement of the planning process that proportionate evidence should be provided.

2.3 In addition, the planning authority has failed to take account of the evidence the guide provides about the principles for success, which include, for example, the understanding and commitment of local people, an exciting vision and strong local leadership. Instead, DPSC3 has been imposed, and described to us by the Council’s Deputy Chief Executive as a sacrifice local people must be prepared to make.

2.4 DPSC3 breaches most of the policies in the local plan which are relevant to the development, to a greater or lesser degree. Infrastructure problems such as flooding, drainage and transport are particularly significant. There would be a permanent shortfall against the required standard described in the plan’s policies, in many cases because full mitigation would not be possible; in other cases, and in particular where the commitments named in the DPSC3 policy itself are concerned, because it is clear already that all these are simply unaffordable. Taken together, this is evidence that the DPSC3 site should never have been selected, and cannot be delivered as described.

For these reasons, we believe the plan is not effective.

2.5 The Mid Sussex local plan includes a sustainability appraisal which claims to be transparent, robust and thorough (P.xxi). Our analysis, however, shows that an important feature of the local plan – a commitment to embrace the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood – has not been carried through into the appraisal; the scoring definitions are unworkable; the assessments themselves are inconsistent and partial; and three of the four alternatives chosen are not reasonable. A rigorous appraisal has not been undertaken, and so the authority has not met this aspect of the ‘Justified’ test.

2.6 The inclusion of DPSC3 has allowed the planning authority to produce a plan which would deliver 1,000 houses more than is needed, but in terms of the standard planning balance would do irreparable damage to the character of the landscape in return for an unsustainable development, as well as flying in the face of national policy. In this sense, the plan has not been positively prepared.

3. National Policy

3.1 One of the four soundness tests requires a local plan to be “consistent with national policy, enabling the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in this framework and other statements of national planning policy, where relevant.” (NPPF Para 35 d, our italics). The planning authority recognises their obligation to take into account any relevant changes on the very first page of the plan. In Appendix A we have referenced and summarised a number of statements which have been made in the last year and which are clearly relevant. They have all been made either by the Secretary of State for Housing, or by the Prime Minister, or the Minister for Housing in the House, and can be found on the websites of either Parliament, or the Department for Levelling Up and Regeneration, or the Prime Minister’s Office, or in Hansard. They are statements made by these office holders in their official capacity, not as private individuals; one is a written ministerial statement to Parliament. As such, they are statements of government policy, and are covered by the phrase in the NPPF which we have quoted above and shown in italics.

3.2 What do they tell us? Planning authorities should focus on urban growth and regeneration, because the evidence base is clear that these are the settings where most people want to live, and this is how other national objectives, such as responding to climate change, can best be met. Active community support and engagement is essential. ‘Concreting over the countryside’ is easy to do, but should be avoided where possible; the revised NPPF identifies that there may be situations where higher density developments are out of character with an area. Authorities are encouraged to make cases under ‘exceptional circumstances’ where they are reasonable, proportionate, and clear.

3.3 The Secretary of State’s speech to RIBA on 18 December 2023 is the most recent announcement and one of the most significant. In it, the Secretary of State makes it clear that housebuilding is a national priority, and planning authorities must not shy away from meeting objectively assessed housing need where it is possible to build. But he also says that, where an authority can show that it has made every effort to meet its target and reaches the point where it could only do so by – for example, concreting over the countryside – they should make their case for a different number through the examination process, in the knowledge that their original planning number would not be regarded as sacrosanct.

3.4 In Mid Sussex, the selection of Option 2 means that the planning authority has relied on green field schemes, rather than coming to them as a last resort, and in doing so has had no regard for this direction on how national policy should be interpreted. The authority will point to the fact that their plan has secured virtually unanimous support from local district councillors. In return, we would point to the level of opposition generated in response to the consultation under Regulation 18 ( which included many of those district councillors) to which we refer later on; the fact that many people feel that at this stage the plan will inevitably be approved ‘because the Council want it’; and above all the planning authority’s declaration to us, and to councillors, that ‘there is no other way’, and that the consequences of not having a plan would be disastrous.

3.5 The planning authority have also told us that they have lobbied nationally for a change in the standard methodology and their local planning number and been unsuccessful, and the revisions to the NPPF in September and December 2023 do not support the announcements we have quoted. In our view, this reflects a misunderstanding on their part. National guidance documents such as the NPPF cannot cover every circumstance, but must inevitably leave much to interpretation by planning authorities and planning inspectors, taking account of local circumstances. The statements we have listed in Appendix A provide ministerial guidance on interpretation, for planners and inspectors alike. And to seek a lower planning number – if that is what is needed – before making the case through examination of the plan is like asking for judgement in the Court of Appeal before the magistrate has heard the case.

3.6 The fact is that while there must be a plan, it should be the right plan, because decisions taken now will affect the character of the area for the foreseeable future. Moreover, there is another way, encouraged by the Secretary of State, and the planning authority has had over a year to embrace it. At the end of our submission we will look at the approach they should have taken in practice. But we conclude this section of our response by declaring that the evidence set out above and in Appendix A shows the authority has failed the test to prepare a plan which is in line with other statements of national planning policy.

4. The Sustainability of DPSC3 – 20-Minute Neighbourhoods

A: Compact, Connected, Complete

4.1 The authority’s case for sustainability in its declared strategy and in respect of DPSC3 rests wholly on the principles of the ‘20-minute neighbourhood’. There is an extended description of the concept in Chapter 3 of the plan, and references run through a range of policies; DBP1, DBT1-3, DPH 7, DPSC GEN, DPSC3 – our list is not exhaustive. The text in Chapter 3 relies heavily on the Town and Country Planning Association guide, which is referenced explicitly on page 17 of the plan and elsewhere. The authority also quotes references to the application of the idea in rural settings.

4.2 A careful reading of the guide will show that the authority has misunderstood the concept of the 20-minute neighbourhood, and misapplied it in making the case for sustainability for DPSC3. It has no evidence to provide in support of its claim to sustainability, and in consequence fails the test of soundness in this regard. We have provided our own summary of the idea, drawn from the same guide the authority has relied on, in Part 1 of Appendix B. But the salient points are these:

The concept relates to settings where a full range of needs can be met within an easily walkable area – in the guide’s language, which the plan quotes, these neighbourhoods must be compact, connected and complete.

These settlements will inevitably be urban in nature, because it will simply not be possible to be compact, connected and complete in a rural location such as DPSC3:

‘Compact’ is used as another word for density. The guide illustrates this with graphics of closely packed dwellings – flats, a tower block, townhouses – surrounded by green spaces: compactness is a characteristic of town life.

‘Complete’ means that almost everything residents need is within the 20 minute neighbourhood. The authority has a list of facilities it proposes should be included in DPSC3 – virtually everything the State can provide. But even if all these are supplied (which we doubt because they will not all be affordable: see Appendix D), this will still not deliver completeness, or make a community. Current social trends mean that existing towns are becoming less complete by the day, and the 20-minute neighbourhood is intended, in part, to reverse that drift. But nowhere is it claimed – there is no evidence – that the concept can create completeness from scratch. This is not within the gift of a developer or a planning authority.

‘Connected’ means that the neighbourhood has good connections not only within itself, but it is also quick and easy for residents to access what the neighbourhood lacks, reducing the need for car travel. This is possible in urban settings. But DPSC3 is a rural site: the plan illustrates a tortuous cycle route from DPSC3 over the A23 to Burgess Hill, at least 25 minutes away, even on their reckoning. Since residents are likely to choose the site because of its proximity to the A23, we can expect that they will use their cars to access Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill, Henfield and Brighton for their shopping.

The case studies in the guide reinforce the point that 20-minute neighbourhoods were conceived for urban growth and regeneration. The origins of the concept are to be found in cities, and the case studies are taken either from cities, from towns, or from developments alongside towns. These latter are called urban extensions in the guide and we need to be very clear what they are: an urban extension is growth alongside – next to – an existing town, connected physically to it, so that the community can quickly and easily access the wider range of amenities and resources. DPSC1 and 2 meet this definition. But DPSC3, despite the authority’s claims, does not.

There is no example, anywhere, of a 20-minute neighbourhood being established successfully in a location such as DPSC3. The guide suggests – no more – that a network of villages might be possible, but again there is no case study, only a footnote, and it is hard to see how a network could operate in practice, because facilities would either be comprehensive but hopelessly scattered, or more compact and incomplete. The footnote references Velo-city, and work to develop a network of villages on the Blenheim estate. But this is mostly about climate friendly travel between communities which already have a shared identity. There is no suggestion that 2,000 houses will be built at Blenheim as part of that vision.

We understand that the authority intends to create one masterplan for all the proposed sites in or near Sayers Common. But this is no more than the transactional co-ordination of developers, not a 20-minute neighbourhood vision.

4.3 All the points made above bear on the effectiveness of the plan and the delivery of this scheme in particular. But there is another dimension to 20-minute neighbourhoods which relates directly to delivery of DPSC3 and therefore effectiveness as a test of soundness. It is a major element in the guide but has been completely overlooked by the planning authority.

B: The Principles for Success

4.4 The second part of Appendix B describes the principles for success which the guide outlines for the establishment of 20-minute neighbourhoods. Where DPSC3 is concerned, the planning authority has met none of them – not a single one. If the authority was committed to and fully understood the idea, leaving aside whether the 20-minute neighbourhood principles can be introduced successfully at all in a rural area, what should it have done?

Site selection should have been determined in large measure by local people’s understanding and support for the concept, following engagement at an early stage – certainly before Regulation 18 consultation.

The authority should have taken steps to secure the active support of a majority, bearing in mind this is a key decision point whether to proceed or not, often tested by local referendum.

It should have sought out one or more local champions – perhaps a district or parish councillor, or other respected local leader, who could advocate for the scheme

If there was evidence of popular support, it should have facilitated discussion among local people and businesses to develop an exciting vision for the development, and been prepared to fund the creation of that vision, and offered to delegate substantial funding from its own budgets on a continuing basis.

4.5 And what has the planning authority done?

It has selected the DPSC3 site in a manner which is opaque to local people and has excluded the community

It has introduced the concept to local residents as the justification for its selection at a late stage and made no effort to win support, or provide evidence for sustainability in the plan.

It has ignored the fact that both local MPs, the parish councils directly affected by the proposal raised objections, and more comments opposed this development than any other housing proposal in the plan.

It has made no attempt to secure local leadership.

It has delivered the old, inappropriate model in which the authority writes a strategy but allows the developer to come with its vision for a particular site which bears no relation to that strategy.We are told in the plan that “any plans should be based on what the community wants” (Page 18). We have not been asked.

4.6 In general terms, it may be acceptable for a planning authority to do no more than meet the statutory requirements on consultation and engagement. Indeed, the authority believes it has done more than this, by offering briefings to parish councils, and now workshops with developers, after its decision to go forward has been taken. But it has set a standard of a different order for itself by espousing the 20-minute neighbourhood principles as its claim to sustainability for DPSC3, and, as described above, it has made no effort to meet that standard. This failure is not something which can be rectified this late in the day by more paragraphs in the plan and attempts to retrofit closer engagement as a result of our challenge. The clock cannot be turned back. After all, local people know that, in the words of the Deputy Chief Executive, this is in fact a sacrifice local people must make – an attitude which is about as far away from an exciting and inspiring vision, and the statements of the Prime Minister and Secretary of State, as it is possible to get.

4.7 DPSC3 is destined to fail on the terms the planning authority has declared for it, and therefore also fails the test of sustainability. The example of Hailsham, included in the TCPA guide, is instructive. The town’s neighbourhood plan “was prepared in response to proposed major growth in Hailsham set out in the draft Wealden Local Plan, which gave rise to community concerns that if expansion were to follow the pattern of recent development it would add to local problems such as infrastructure deficiencies and would exacerbate traffic problems” (Panel, Page 51). In other words, local people were appalled at the prospect of a top-down, imposed development such as DPSC3 which would add to existing local difficulties, and decided to take matters into their own hands. And they were able to do so, because of course the town of Hailsham offers an urban setting of sufficient size, suitable for regeneration and therefore appropriate for application of the 20-minute neighbourhood principles. But neither Sayers Common or Albourne meet the criteria that Hailsham does.

4.8 The next paragraph in the Hailsham case study illustrates how such schemes should be progressed. The committee travelled around the town, seeking views on the current position and future growth… concerns about access and service provision were explored… vision and objective setting workshops were held…a final referendum to assess local people’s views. Note: all these activities took place before decisions were made, not afterwards.

4.9 Engagement and communication at this level are not optional extras: they are integral to the concept of the 20-minute neighbourhood.

4.10 The main claim to sustainability to justify DPSC3’s inclusion in the plan is that it will be developed in accordance with the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood. However, careful examination of the concept demonstrates that it is not appropriate for a rural setting, at some distance from the nearest town.

5. The Sustainability of DPSC3 – Infrastructure

5.1 The Hailsham case study points to another reason why DPSC3 is not sustainable – the legitimate concerns of local people about infrastructure deficiencies and worsening traffic problems. Residents, of course, know the issues involved in their daily lives intimately. By contrast, expert studies take a snapshot which may or may not accurately capture local experience. But there are two disturbing trends. The first is that these issues are always raised, and never properly resolved: promises are made, but rarely kept in full. We explore this point in more detail under ‘Character of the Landscape’ below. In summary, too many promises have to be made to allow DPSC3 to go forward: we can see already that they cannot all be kept.

5.2 The second trend is that when studies do show significant problems, assumptions are revised to minimise them or even make them go away altogether although the evidence which supports these changes can be short-lived. We can see an example of the latter in the revised traffic assumptions put together for the plan. The paper presented to the Council’s Scrutiny Committee on 22 November 2023 reported revisions to the transport model( paras 32-41).Ten severe junction problems were identified in the initial model but these were reduced to three by, among other things, ‘taking into account matters such as increased home working and the effects of providing schools on the significant sites’. But DPSC3 as planned would not provide enough students for a properly-sized secondary school: children will have to arrive by bus or car from Burgess Hill, Henfield, and other settlements, because of the rural nature of the site and the difficulty and danger involved in cycling or walking on local roads. Schools are places where cars always congregate.

5.3 As far as home working is concerned, the pendulum is now swinging in the other direction. A recent poll of CEOs revealed that a return to full office working is expected by 2026.The Hays October 2023 survey showed more staff are already returning to their place of work. Miss Wilson v FCA (ET No.2302739/2023) decided that it was reasonable for employers to require staff to return to the office. And employees are likely to change their minds of their own accord when they see that out of sight can mean out of a job (Daily Telegraph 28/1/24: “The work from home boom is becoming a redundancy from home bust”.) Can it really be sensible to plan for generations, based on temporary trends which suit the planning authority’s need of the moment? Or, to put it another way, there is now no proportionate evidence to justify the ‘revision’ of traffic assumptions.

5.4 With this introduction, we highlight the following infrastructure deficiencies:

Water Supply and Drainage

Climate change means that there will be more rainfall, and the roads around the DPSC3 site are already prone to serious flooding. The site itself is largely clay, which makes the construction of holding and attenuation ponds an inadequate response. Ultimately waste water can be channelled away only to the Adur and its flood plain. This river is tidal as far as Wineham, and Shermanbury regularly receives ‘red’ flood warnings. Concreting over the landscape at DPSC3 will simply increase flooding without proper remedy. And, as we point out in our discussion of transport issues, the B2116 route through Shermanbury to Cowfold will receive more traffic, because it is one of only two roads connecting to the A272 and the west.

Both Albourne and Sayers Common have experienced an increase in flood and drainage problems in recent years, caused partly by climate change and, in Sayers Common, partly by ill-considered development. We have no confidence that these issues will be fully resolved, given the likely cost of the full range of commitments made in the local plan (see section 7.6) In particular, DPSC4,5,6 & 7 will create additional flooding and drainage problems in Sayers Common out of all proportion to the benefit from additional dwellings.

South East Water supplies fresh water as well as waste water services to the ‘Hamlet’ component of the site. The company is on record as saying that they cannot support additional development without the introduction of demand reduction measures.

Transport

The attraction of the site to the developer and to potential residents is its proximity to the A23. Development would achieve what the TCPA guide warns against: the planning authority would create a gentrified commuter estate.

Traffic wishing to use the A23 heading north would have to pass through Sayers Common. Traffic heading south would probably also go north to the Hickstead junction to access the southbound carriageway, at the point at which three lanes reduce to two each way; or it would have to make the longer journey through Albourne to join the A23 at Muddleswood. In either case the congestion this would cause can only be written out of the plan by making heroic and unrealistic assumptions about minimal car use – and yet commuting is what would attract potential residents. As pointed out above, evidence is beginning to accumulate that employers are requiring attendance in the workplace, to reduce mental health problems and improve productivity.

Commuters who wish to travel by rail from Hassocks station would have to drive through Hurstpierpoint, already a notorious bottleneck, and add to queueing and pollution problems at the Stonepound crossroads.

Traffic heading west would access the A272 either by means of the narrow B2116 or by adding to the traffic heading north on the A23. But either route would lead to Cowfold, another notorious pollution and congestion blackspot.

Trusler’s Hill Lane, which would become the western boundary of the ‘Hamlet’, would immediately become a rat run to Brighton and the A27. Already this road is burdened with fast traffic, it cannot be widened and, without pavements, is already precarious for walkers wishing to access local footpaths. It is also in daily use as a leisure route for cyclists and horse riders. It joins the A281 at a junction notorious for accidents.

The TCPA guide notes that “there is growing awareness that active travel in rural areas is difficult and sometimes dangerous. Rural roads usually have no pavements, and the large lorries and farm equipment that use them deter many people from cycling on them….substantial investment is needed to ensure that every village can be reached safely by anyone – of any physical ability – travelling actively.” The authority has made no acknowledgement of the first point, and no provision for the second.

5.5 In conclusion, therefore, we submit that development of DPSC3 would not be sustainable because the planning authority relies on a justification which is not relevant to a rural setting and cannot be made to become so; the adjustments which would be required in order to comply with the plan’s own policy requirements would be too onerous; and development of the site would add to existing infrastructure difficulties without evidence that they could be resolved satisfactorily. The inclusion of the ‘Hamlet’ part of the site can be explained only by the fact that the developer controls the land. It is divided and effectively isolated from the main site by the B2116, and can be accessed only from that road or – in their scheme – from Trusler’s Hill Lane. It will have few facilities and nothing to suggest that it can be sustainable: it is even further removed from the vision of a 20-minute neighbourhood.

6.The Sustainability Appraisal (“There is No Alternative”)

6.1 One of the four tests (‘Justified’) requires the planning authority to prepare ‘an appropriate strategy, taking into account reasonable alternatives, and based on proportionate evidence’. We have already considered one aspect of appropriateness in our submission by showing that the strategy contradicts recent national policy statements and the authority’s own commitment (P. 89) by relying on green field sites as the main plank of its plan, not a last resort; and we have shown too that the sustainability of DPSC3 is not based on proportionate evidence – it is based on no evidence at all. But we, and local councillors, have been told by the planning authority that they have been driven to this strategy because ‘there is no alternative’, and in this section of our response we show why this is not true, and why against this test of soundness the plan is not justified.

6.2 Planning authorities are required to prepare sustainability appraisals to accompany their local plans, and this is where the detailed justification of their preferred strategy can be found. The assessment process is meant to be ‘transparent, robust and thorough’ (P.xxi) but in this case it is in fact opaque, inconsistent and partial – to the extent that we question whether it properly meets the legal requirement to conduct an appraisal. We have examined the appraisal and make no claim to have done so exhaustively: our focus is the case for sustainability and the inclusion of DPSC3. Our findings are summarised in Appendix C, but we provide our broad conclusions here.

The appraisal document references the 20-minute neighbourhood principles used extensively in the plan but fails to build them into the criteria which are used in the appraisal, mixing them up with other definitions of sustainability.

The scoring definitions are too crude to act as a credible guide to the assessment of either strategic options or individual sites.

The assessments themselves are inconsistent and partial. The appraisal of Option 2 – the preferred option – is allowed a latitude which is not granted to Option 1, with the result that Option 1 is marked down by comparison. If the appraisal had been even handed, Option 1 would have emerged as the best fit with the strategic objectives and supporting policies, as well as having, on the authority’s own admission, the potential to reach the local planning number.

As we show in Appendix D, DPSC3 would, in any balanced assessment, score so badly that its selection could not be justified, nor could it be considered deliverable.

Planning authorities are expected to consider reasonable alternatives. Three of these options are not reasonable. In a rural district, urban development alone, or brownfield site development alone, could not possibly meet the local planning number. And the plan itself lists reasons why the market town option (Option 3) cannot even be considered: the promoter has withdrawn it; there are water neutrality issues; and the neighbouring authority does not support it.

6.3 The only way to explain these shortcomings and inconsistencies is to realise that a standard appraisal template has been retrofitted to justify the preferred option. A proper appraisal, based on the authority’s stated objectives and using an open, objectively applied scoring methodology would lead to a very different conclusion.

6.4 The sustainability appraisal, therefore, does not provide an objective, transparent and robust assessment of reasonable alternatives. In this sense, the plan is not justified. Appendix C also gives our recommendation on how a proper appraisal should be prepared.

7. Positively Prepared

A : An Unbalanced Plan

7.1 The NPPF explains this test as follows: “[the plan] provides a strategy which as a minimum meets the area’s objectively assessed needs and is informed by agreements with other authorities (where practical and consistent with sustainable development)” [Our italics]. We do not contest the calculation of the local planning number, but we note that the Secretary of State has emphasised that this is a starting point, and advisory not mandatory. Nor do we wish to suggest that the planning authority has failed to meet its duty to cooperate: there is a clear statement in the plan that Statements of Common Ground have been agreed. We note, however, that this can be fulfilled simply by having positive discussions with neighbouring authorities who have a stake in the same housing market. Our case is that, in preparing its plan, the authority has not had due regard to the standard planning balance, and has chosen a strategy which does unnecessary damage to the character of the landscape, and violates many of its own policies and strategic objectives.

7.2 In this regard, we wish to make the following points about the current plan:

Development is concentrated in two parishes out of twenty four, inflicting disproportionate damage in those areas.

The planning authority has produced a plan which seems designed to maximise damage: over 4,000 dwellings are proposed for these two parishes on green field sites compared with, for example, only 266 in Haywards Heath and 45 in East Grinstead in the same period.

Although the authority now intends to include DPSC4,5,6 & 7 with DPSC3 in one masterplan, the smaller sites were submitted independently and do not demonstrate a strategic coherence in the development of Sayers Common village. Their rationale lies only in the fact that land was available for development, and in addition to the drainage and flooding problems referred to in section 5.4, their location means that they will have a damaging impact on the character of the village out of all proportion to the benefit from the additional dwellings. DPSC5, bracketed by woodland which makes it an isolated settlement, wraps around two long standing dwellings and will have a density and a building style which will destroy the character of the setting.

The current plan provides for 1,000 dwellings above the local planning number. The planning authority suggests that this is for resilience, and can contribute to its duty to co-operate. On both counts, this is excessive. The plan is badly flawed if it requires this level of resilience; and on the second point we draw attention to the phrase in the NPPF guidance which we have italicised. In exceeding the planning number to the tune of 1,000 dwellings by relying on DPSC3, the authority has produced a total which is not practical or consistent with sustainable development.

B: The Character of the Landscape

7.3 An important part of the standard planning balance is the assessment of the benefit of development against the disbenefits it will cause. The planning authority has a suite of policies which bear on the character of the landscape and how it will be protected: here, we describe in the plan’s own terms what damage DPSC3 would do, and the implications of that damage for the plan in its current form.

7.4 We begin with a statement made by the Minister for Housing in the debate on the National Planning Framework held on 23 January and referenced in Appendix A. In the debate, he made the point that the revised NPPF now sets out that there may be situations where higher urban densities would be wholly out of character with the existing area, and that that could be a strong reason why significantly uplifting densities would be inappropriate. There can be no clearer example of this than DPSC3, which is itself a green field site in a wider rural setting.

7.5 We have summarised the relevant policies in Appendix D. Although described as policies, in layman’s terms these are in fact statements of standards the authority intends to use as guides, and which it requires developments to meet. In some cases, mitigation will simply not be possible, leading to a falling off against the standard – in other words to damage – for which there is no remedy. Loss of rural landscape is an example. In other cases, the authority would require the developer to spend money to mitigate or make good the damage caused – for example management of flood and waste water, and drainage.

7.6 There are 31 policies under the relevant policy themes. Some of the policies within these themes do not concern the DPSC3 site – for example, Historic Parks and Gardens (DPN5), Ashdown Forest (DPC6), Conservation Areas (DPB3) and Off-Airport Car parking (DPT5). But DPSC3 will not meet the required standard in all the relevant policies, to a greater or lesser degree. We have two points to make here. How could DPSC3 be selected, given that it does not comply with such a large number of policies? And, second, the cost of the required mitigations (not all of which will fully or satisfactorily deal with the lack of compliance) will place a burden on the developer which is unreasonable and thus unlikely to be met, particularly when the list of benefits such as schools, community and sports facilities included in policy DPSC3 is included. Choices will have to be made between the benefits which have been promised and the standards to be reached, or the development will not be able to proceed. And yet it is the aggregate of commitments made in the plan now which is intended to provide a compelling case for sustainability.

7.7 It is important to take this perspective and consider these shortcomings together, rather than a sequence of problems to be considered individually, such as pollution and congestion at traffic junctions, or flood management. Because, taken in isolation, they might be regarded as more or less manageable or tolerable; taken together, they render the development of DPSC3 not only disproportionately damaging, but unaffordable and therefore undeliverable.

7.8 Appendix D highlights the following additional points:

This landscape, although not special in terms of protected status or heritage assets, is still valuable in its own right, and the development should be seen in the context of the wider rural landscape

A 2,000 dwelling development will have a disproportionate impact on the two villages Albourne and Sayers Common. The authority’s own policy on coalescence has been strengthened since the Regulation 18 consultation to resist development where it would have an unacceptably urbanising effect on the area between the settlements. Urbanisation is defined as “The increase in the proportion of the population living in urban areas and the process by which an area loses its rural character and way of life”. In Appendix D we quote a practical definition which is easy to apply. Since urbanisation means more than simply the physical location of houses, inclusion of DPSC3 would clearly breach this policy.

Local residents and conservation groups can testify to the destruction of natural habitats

The planning authority’s own sustainability assessment identifies significant adverse impact as a result of DPSC3 – although our review outlined in Appendix D suggests that even this has been underplayed

7.9 The evidence in this section of our response demonstrates that, in terms of the standard planning balance, DPSC3 would do far more damage than the benefits which would accrue from development of the site; and since the plan relies on this impractical, undeliverable and unsustainable policy, it must be regarded as failing to be positively prepared.

8. The Best Option

8.1 What then should the planning authority do? It is hard to believe that a call for sites which resulted in a potential of 39,000 dwellings (SHELAA, October 2023) could not generate well grounded plans for at least 7,500 houses which were a better strategic fit and did less violence to the authority’s own suite of policies than DPSC3. We cannot be expected to review all those sites again: it is for the authority to do so. But we set out here what we believe to be an approach which is more in line with national priorities and the authority’s own stated objectives; more likely to command the support of local people; and more likely to meet the definition of ‘positively prepared’ substantively.

8.2 The authority has set great store by the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood. If we take that as an overarching strategic guide, then the main towns – East Grinstead, Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill – should be developed accordingly, and this should be written into the relevant policies. Astonishingly, there is no reference to 20 minute neighbourhoods in the Economy chapter bar one (page 124), which appears to see the role of towns and larger villages as supporting neighbourhoods elsewhere, rather than being developed as potential neighbourhoods in their own right. And yet, as we have seen, it is an idea developed for urban areas.

8.3 The same licence to incorporate elements of other options which is allowed for Option 2 should be allowed for Option 1, by including Options 4 and 5. We have already noted that Option 1 is assessed as having the potential to achieve the planning number, and on past performance Options 4 and 5 should make a significant contribution towards the required total (in the period 2007-2021 for example, small sites delivered between 15% and 20% of completions per annum) since in the current plan East Grinstead and Haywards Heath contribute only 45 and 266 houses for the second decade respectively.

8.4 The authority should accept a larger number of smaller sites which align more closely with their strategic and policy intentions. Where they wish to explore a smaller number of larger sites, they should apply properly the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood, being actively conscious of the balance between the benefit of housing versus (in this district) damage to the character of the landscape, up to the point at which further additions become impractical or unsustainable. As policies, these additions would take the form of urban extensions to large and medium sized towns in the district. The Hailsham model would be a helpful guide. Such an approach would be in line with the planning authority’s own stated strategy and national guidance, and would be more sustainable, deliverable, and appropriate. And it would certainly not include DPSC3.

8.5 We can outline the three possible outcomes:

The planning number is achieved and there is a contribution to other planning authorities in line with the duty to co-operate
The planning number is achieved but there is no contribution under duty to co-operate
The planning number is not achieved but the authority can demonstrate in its plan that it has taken all reasonable steps to do so: it can therefore submit a revised number to the inspectorate, in line with recent guidance from the Secretary of State.

9. Conclusion

9.1 DPSC3 (Land to the south of Reeds Lane, Sayers Common) should be removed from the plan for the following reasons, each supported by evidence and argument in this submission:

Unsustainable – because it depends wholly on the application of a concept – the 20-minute neighbourhood – which is not appropriate in a rural setting, and has no evidence to support it. An unfeasibly long list of benefits has been promised, but even if these were delivered in full, the development would still not meet the standards of sustainability.

In conflict with the authority’s own strategy, which is to preserve and protect the countryside and, if they wish to embrace the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods, would be to focus on growth and regeneration in urban settings.

At odds with national policy. Government has been crystal clear over the last year that it does not wish to see the countryside concreted over. The authority has had plenty of time to respond and revise its plan accordingly

The damage caused would outweigh the benefits. DPSC3 is at odds with so many of the authority’s stated policies that it is hard to see how it can have been selected. But since it has, the cost of compliance with those policies will be too great for the developer to bear, leading to a failure of the scheme, and a breach of the terms on which the scheme was selected.

Undeliverable, and therefore not Effective The principles for success in creating a 20-minute neighbourhood require the involvement, commitment and active support of local people which has not been secured.

Not positively prepared, because the authority relies on an impractical, unsustainable scheme to plan for 1,000 houses more than it needs.

Unjustified, because reasonable alternatives have not been considered, and a flawed and partial methodology has been used to justify a strategic option which does not accord with the authority’s own policies.