WILD’s Regulation 19 Response – Appendices

The National Planning Policy Framework requires planning authorities to prepare an appropriate strategy, taking into account the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence; in law, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires authorities to undertake a sustainability appraisal. 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 if all options were treated fairly Option 1, not Option 2 would be preferred; and 

• three of the four alternatives chosen are not reasonable. 

The appraisal appears to be an off-the-shelf template adapted to support the client’s (Mid Sussex) preferred answer, rather than an assessment which responds to the strategic intentions of the plan, provides clear, consistent analysis, and uses transparent scoring.

The authority has not, therefore, met this aspect of the ‘Justified’ test. 

  1. Principles of the 20-Minute Neighbourhood

The appraisal references these principles as the basis for determining sustainability: “To achieve sustainable development, the DPR has adopted the concept of 20-minute neighbourhoods which provide a framework for new developments…” (P.13). We could expect, therefore, to find that the main elements of the concept – that developments should be compact, connected and complete – would be a guiding theme of the appraisal; this would be reflected accurately in the determination of spatial options; and the distinguishing feature – that what people need should be accessible within a ten minute walk – would be built into the scoring definitions. 

Instead, we find no mention of these elements. In fact one of them – ‘compact’ – is identified as undesirable. The TCPA guide (Section 1.2) says, “The density of homes and buildings is important, and, in general, it is easier and more cost-effective to provide facilities and services in denser areas… The advantage of more dense areas is that a wide range of facilities can be located closer together, and, provided there are high-quality connections between these places, people are more likely to walk or travel actively”. But in section 3.4.1 of the sustainability appraisal (Housing) we read, “When striving for sustainable development, housing density should be considered carefully. High population densities can limit the accessibility of local key services such as hospitals, supermarkets, and open spaces, including playgrounds and sports fields. High population densities also influence perceptions of safety, social interactions, and community stability.”

The unfortunate impression this creates is that the authority has commissioned a study they haven’t bothered to read carefully themselves, from an organisation which hasn’t done its homework properly –  but the serious point underlying it is that the appraisal is confused about the standards which it should be using to determine sustainability. Similarly, the appraisal fails to take account of community engagement, the need for an urban setting for or next to the neighbourhood, and a meaningful measure of ‘completeness’, in assessing the plan’s policies. 

Now we turn to the assumptions underpinning the assessment criteria. Section 3.4 describes these. In general, the report references ‘Barton et al (2010)’ as the authority on sustainable distances. But this is not the standard the planning authority has committed itself to use: Barton has been superseded by the more recent TCPA guide. If the principles of the 20 minute neighbourhood are to be followed, then the ‘impact’ triggers for Health and Wellbeing, Education, Climate Change and Transport, Economic Regeneration and Economic Growth all need to be revised, leading to a significant change in the scoring of each option.

Finally, we should point out that the logic of the planning authority’s approach requires consideration of a spatial option which uses the 20-minute neighbourhood concept as its strategic frame. If this were done, the option would include proportionate development in settlements; urban regeneration and use of brownfield sites; and a limited number of urban extensions to the main towns. Its absence is a further sign of the disconnect between the main text of the plan and the sustainability appraisal.

  2. Scoring Definitions

Section 3.3 contains the Impact Significance key (Table 3-9, Page 36) which combines ‘sensitivity’ and ‘magnitude’ into a single value, and provides the definitions which sit behind the scoring system of major and minor negative or positive. To say this scoring system is crude is an understatement. We take the negative score definitions as our example. The definition for ‘major negative’ begins by setting a standard of damage on a national or international scale, or a diminishing of a very high quality receptor, which we might think should be comparatively rare. But the scale definition then mixes this with an outcome in which the damage ‘is unable to be entirely mitigated’. Against that measure, it will be very easy to allocate a ‘major negative’ to a large number of the sites assessed in the appraisal, across a large number of criteria – because ‘entirely’, of course, means fully, totally, absolutely, completely. The range within the metric is too great to allow meaningful application.

The definition of ‘minor negative’  is equally unusable. This score is to be awarded if the option in question – literally – ‘doesn’t quite fit’, or has a bad impact which hasn’t even been recognised in the plan. Fitness, and undesignated yet recognised local receptors are clearly subjective. And these major and minor scores are the only two points on both sides of the appraisal scale. There is no intermediate grading of scores which would allow a sensible assessment to be made. So, if these definitions can’t be applied meaningfully to an assessment of the strategic options, what are the metrics which are used? As we show below in our consideration of  the housing policy, these are not defined simply and clearly, or applied consistently and fairly.

  3. Inconsistent and Partial Assessments

All we have to justify the allocation of scores to spatial options is a mix of narrative text and summary descriptions in tables, which often contradict each other. Appendix A contains the appraisal of the spatial options.  If we take housing, and look at Table A-4, Option 2 is the only one to score a major positive (++), and it is easy to see that housing is the sole determinant of overall preference because Option 2 scores poorly on other criteria, but is the only one of all the five options to be awarded (++). However Table A-5, which goes into greater detail for each option, says that both Option 1 and Option 2 have the potential to meet the identified housing need – and yet Option 1 is awarded only a +/- score for housing. Now, the definition of this score (Page 37 in the main document) is : “It is entirely uncertain whether impacts would be positive or adverse”. Its application to Option One for housing is therefore meaningless. Bear in mind that the only objective being assessed here is the ability to produce housing numbers of the right mix, rather than the effect of the option on environmental, economic or other considerations which are assessed separately in the appraisal. Since it has the potential to achieve the housing number, the only possible score for Option 1 here is a major positive.

Why has this not been given? The text below Table A-4 says that this is because there could be development in the High Weald ONB under Option 1. But, buried away in Table A-3 we find that Option 2 would also allow limited growth in protected landscapes. In fact, development would be limited in both cases by the overarching principle “Protection of Designated Landscapes” – and should have ensured equal treatment in the assessment.

Although the argument is never marshalled in one place, Option 2’s score is in fact driven by the fact that it generates a surplus over plan (Section A.3: feasibility of options, text Page A-8)) and by deliverability (Section A.5 Section 2 Assessment Page A-16). But the generation of a surplus was never identified as a criterion for assessment. And we are told in section 3.4.15 of the main document that “One factor which is not reflected in the SA scoring is the likelihood of implementation”, which is left for other assessments including the site assessments. But it has, in fact, been used to justify the preference for Option 2 here. As the Secretary of State has pointed out, it is relatively easy to develop greenfield sites. But that does not mean they are the right place to build.

This inconsistency and partiality occurs elsewhere. What is clear is that no option on its own can meet the planning number, in the authority’s view. The definitions of the options are applied rigorously to their housing potential in Options 1, 3, 4 and 5. A problem with Option 1, for example (Section A.3, Page A-7/8), is that some settlements which do have a need for housing have insufficient sites, whereas others with no need have plenty of sites. Continuing with this option, we are told, would not be achievable (? means ‘would not achieve the planning number’?) “since it would not enable sufficient sites to be allocated to meet housing need within the district”. We have the same strict application to Option 4, where proportionate growth across other settlements is strictly excluded and Option 5, because there are “limited brownfield sites available within the reasonable alternatives identified”. A review of Table A-4 shows that all bar Option 3 score better than Option 2 on other criteria. And so the rules need to be bent in favour of Option 2: in the conclusion we learn that it is the preferred option because “it will incorporate elements of Option 1 to continue growth at existing sustainable settlements where available sites allow.” So Option 2 is also unable to deliver the required planning number, and must rely on Option 1. But the reverse – Option 1 to be allowed to incorporate elements of Option 2 – is not permitted. 

Finally, we look at section 4 (SA Findings for the Plan Spatial Options) in the main document. In Table 4-1, the principle “Growth at existing sustainable settlements” scores a ‘double plus’ for housing. It looks very like Option 1, which “maintains the existing spatial strategy … with proportionate growth across the hierarchy of settlements”. But, as we have seen, Option One bizarrely scores a ‘plus/minus’ on housing. The fourth principle, “Opportunities for extensions, to improve sustainability of existing settlements that are currently less sustainable”, scores a ‘plus/minus’ on housing in 4-1. It looks very like Option 2: “Growth to support the sustainability potential of existing smaller settlements”, which of course scores a ‘double plus’.  With confusions and mistakes like this, the appraisal has no credibility.

  4. Reasonable Alternatives

There is no definition of what a reasonable alternative option is: the appraisal records simply that the number of options has been expanded following responses in the previous consultation. We offer our own definition, therefore: an option is reasonable if a) it offers a realistic prospect of allowing the district to achieve its objectively assessed housing need; and b) it is not in conflict with the 4 principles enunciated on Page 57 of the appraisal. Reasonable alternatives will, of course, vary in their performance against the full range of criteria, but that after all is the purpose of the assessment, allowing the selection of the best fit. 

What do we find? We have already noted that Option 1 is assessed as having the potential to meet the need, as well as scoring highly on a number of other criteria. Option 2, as we have seen, gets a higher score on deliverability grounds, which is not a formal part of the methodology, and otherwise scores poorly. However, the remaining options fail to pass the ‘reasonable’ test, in the planning authority’s own view. Option 3, we read, is not supported by the neighbouring district Horsham; the site promoter has withdrawn it; and there are water neutrality problems. Option 4 proposes that development should be concentrated in the three main towns in the district. It is certainly our contention that the plan pays insufficient attention to these opportunities which are entirely consistent with – indeed, the main opportunity for – the development of 20-minute neighbourhoods, but we agree with the authority that this alone could not achieve the housing number. The authority knows it too, and has told us as much in correspondence. The same is true of Option 5. The text below table A-2 in this appendix says, “Mid Sussex has limited brownfield sites available for development- only 12% of the district is within a Defined Built-up Area”. If they know this, why do they regard it as a reasonable alternative? The inevitable conclusion is that the appraisal has been boosted by unreasonable alternatives to allow a weak option to be preferred. 

  5. Conclusion

Failure to have a 20-minute neighbourhood spatial option which aligns with the plan…boiler-plate text about density of housing at odds with the authority’s preferred strategy… the use of ‘industry standard’ metrics for travel rather than the authority’s chosen standard of the 20-minute neighbourhood… hopelessly vague and inappropriate scoring definitions.. These are the hallmarks of a standard template. Within this frame, an effort has been made to retrofit justifications of the authority’s preferred solution. Arguments such as surplus over plan and ease of implementation which are not declared as scoring criteria (and in the case of implementation has been ruled out by the template) are imported. The preferred option is allowed to have a little help from another option – a licence not allowed to any other. And a collection of unreasonable options are introduced, presumably because a close analysis of just two – Option 1 and Option 2 – would throw unwelcome light on where the best option is to be found.

What should the authority do? Unfortunately, the lack of a proper appraisal undermines the credibility of the whole plan.These failings cannot be remedied by the addition of paragraphs here and there, and deletions of the embarrassing contradictions.  If the authority wishes to adopt the principles of the 20-minute neighbourhood – and it says it does – then a new appraisal should build those principles into the appraisal, its spatial options and its metrics. What would emerge is a preference which focuses on a redesignated Option 1, supplemented by the development of urban centres, including, where appropriate, urban extensions as described in the TCPA guide.