3. Core Policy: SD1: Sustainable Development (Part 3 of 16)

This is part of the Coldwaltham Meadow Conservation Group’s comments on the pre-submission Local Plan for the South Downs National Park. We have commented on 14 different Policies and on the HRA and the SA. We have therefore made 16 separate representations, all in the context of Allocation Policy SD64. They consist of the following:

1The SDNPA Habitat Regulations Assessment

2The SDNPA Sustainability Appraisal

3Core Policy SD1: Sustainable Development

4Core Policy SD2: Ecosystem Services

5Core Policy SD3: Major Development

6Strategic Policy SD4: Landscape Character

7Strategic Policy SD6: Safeguarding Views

8Strategic Policy SD8: Dark Night Skies

9Strategic Policy SD9: Biodiversity and Geodiversity

10Strategic Policy SD10: International Sites

11Strategic Policy SD12: Historic Environment

12Strategic Policy SD19: Transport and Accessibility

13Strategic Policy SD22: Parking Provision

14Strategic Policy SD23: Sustainable Tourism

15Strategic Policy SD25: Development Strategy

16Allocation Policy SD64: Land South of London Road

1. The Coldwaltham Meadow Conservation Group considers the Local Plan is not sound because Local Plan Core Policy SD1: Sustainable Development, in the context of Policy SD64, is not consistent with Government planning policy concerning the presumption in favour of sustainable development set out in NPPF 14 and 119:

NPP14: “Specific policies in this framework indicate development should be restricted, e.g, those policies relating to sites protected under the Birds and Habitats Directives [NPPF 119] and/or designated as SSSI, or within a National Park.”

NPPF 119: “The presumption in favour of sustainable development [NPPF 14] does not apply where development requiring appropriate assessment under the Birds or Habitats Directives is being considered, planned or determined.”

The presumption in favour of sustainable development does not apply to Policy SD64

1.2 The Arun Valley is one of the most beautiful and biodiverse areas in the National Park, and the proposed site for Policy SD64, the only flower-rich hay meadow in the Valley, is one of its most colourful components. Much of the Valley is protected by international law, (Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar site) and part of it is protected under UK legislation (Waltham Brooks SSSI). No other wildlife area in the National Park has this combination of International, European and UK designations; it is arguably the most important wildlife site in the National Park. Policy SD64, the meadow, is an integral part of the Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar site; it is only 90 metres from the SPA and more than half of it lies within a Natural England Impact Risk Zone; the whole meadow is identified as a Supporting Habitat for the barbastelle bats of The Mens SAC in the Local Plan’s Habitats Regulations Assessment.

1.3 The Public Open Space and amenity car park elements of Policy SD64 are located right on the boundary of the SSSI and some of the housing is still located within the IRZ. Allocation Policy SDWW-11 was withdrawn from the meadow in 2015 because of its close proximity to protected sites; Policy SD64 is even closer and should also be withdrawn. Although the housing element has been moved 100 metres further away from boundary of the SSSI than SDWW-11, the Public Open Space and amenity car park, with all the recreational pressure associated with it, abuts the SSSI boundary. Policy SD64 is far too close to the designated sites within the Arun Valley. It creates urbanisation and recreational pressure impact pathways for the Arun Valley and, via the meadow’s role as a Supporting Habitat, for The Mens SAC. The artificial lighting associated with the shop and new housing, together with the removal of mature trees and sections of hedgerow to make the shop visible and to create a visibility splay for the development (as outlined in the Development Brief) will destroy a commuting route for the barbastelles of The Mens, and from elsewhere within the Arun Valley. The development of a Public Open Space and amenity car park will impoverish if not destroy the floristic components of the rest of the meadow. This will reduce invertebrate availability in the meadow, causing an adverse affect on the Supporting Habitat for foraging barbastelles. Policy SD64 should therefore be withdrawn because it contravenes the Birds and Habitats Directives for the two separate designated areas of the Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar site and The Mens SAC. It is also wholly in conflict with the First Purpose of the National Park.

1.4 The SDNPA Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) has considered impact pathways for the designated sites referred to above. We consider the HRA to be flawed in the assessment of the impacts of Policy SD64 upon the Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar site and The Mens SAC and it is therefore not possible to consider that the Local Plan, which relies upon it, is sound. Our detailed comments about the HRA have been submitted separately, as part of our Local Plan submission.

No Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest

1.5 The UK Vision and Circular 2010 indicates that: “achieving a sustainable economy” is one of the principles of sustainable development, but this shouldn’t be at the expense of one of the most biodiverse areas in the National Park, particularly when other alternative sites for development have been offered by other landowners in the village. The UK Vision and Circular 2010: Major Developments, also states:

“… all major developments should be subject to the most rigorous examination and proposals should be demonstrated to be in the public interest before being allowed to proceed.” (Paragraph 31.)

There is no Imperative Reasons of Overriding Public Interest (IROPI) argument in allocating the meadow for development that would override the significant adverse effects that Policy SD64 would have on the Arun Valley SAC/SPA/Ramsar site and, via the meadow’s role as Supporting Habitat, on The Mens SAC. Policy SD64 therefore also lacks coherence with Strategic Policy SD10 and SD25.

1.5.1 There is no current evidence of anything other than a minor amount of local housing need for Coldwaltham, as indicated by Appendix E to Assessment of Site Allocations against Major Development Considerations (Envision 2015, updated September 2017): “The housing register currently shows 59 households seeking rented units in Coldwaltham. However current data only suggests 3 to have a local connection and hence constitute local need…The nearby sites at Silverdale, will meet immediate housing need, and is under construction.”

1.5.2 There is also no evidence of unmet housing need for the two other villages in the Horsham part of the National Park. Two of the three villages, Washington and Amberley, are delivering their own local housing need via Neighbourhood Development Plans and the third village is Coldwaltham.

1.5.3 There is no evidence of unmet housing need in any other part of Horsham District Council (HDC). According to HDC’s SHELAA 2016: “…all SHELAA sites within the NP boundary were excluded from the Horsham District Council SHLAA” and that, with respect to the rest of Horsham District Council: “Considering the information given above, the potential supply of identified sites considered ‘deliverable’ (1-5 years) and ‘developable’ (6-10 years), together with a windfall allowance of 50 units per annum is 9,845 units, which is more than sufficient to meet a ten year supply of housing sites as required through the NPPF.”

1.5.4 The Assessment of Site Allocations against Major Development Considerations, September 2017 update report, referred to above, also concludes that Policy SD64 will “…have only a marginal effect in helping the retention of existing facilities and businesses”. This is because Coldwaltham has so few services and facilities; new residents will have to drive elsewhere to gain employment, or access services such as health care, a library or a bank. It is worth noting that this assessment of Policy SD64 is maintained in the September 2017 update referred to above despite the inclusion of a shop and a 50% increase in housing allocation for Policy SD64. (The former allocation policy SDWW-11 was for 20 houses located in a different part of the meadow.) This “marginal effect” cannot be considered an Imperative Reason of Overriding Public Interest justification for destroying the only flower-rich hay meadow in the Arun Valley and generating the significant levels of disturbance to the Arun Valley SPA and the supporting habitat to The Mens SAC that would result.

1.5.5 The 30 new houses generated by Policy SD64 will not necessarily result in sustained or higher levels of attendance at the local Primary School. Low attendance at the school was not due to a lack of children of suitable age within the community; it was due to staffing instability and a poor Ofsted report in 2015. The school roll is now on the increase, following a more satisfactory Ofsted inspection. (Source: Coldwaltham Parish Council Notes in The Link, September 2017) This demonstrates that if the quality of education provided by a school is of a high enough standard, parents will want their children to attend, not just from the local community, but from further away. Our group is not opposed to some affordable housing in the village, in the hope that it will sustain our community, but this should be sited elsewhere, on one of the other sites that have been offered by local landowners.

1.5.6 Policy SD64 will not foster the social well-being of the local community. Local residents do not want to be deprived of the views, sounds and scents of the beautiful hay meadow, and the countryside beyond, and the opportunities for wildlife watching it affords. Policy SD64 is a relatively large block of development, stuck at the end of the village. It will ruin the perceived tranquillity of the area and will alter the rural character of both Coldwaltham and Watersfield, for both villages will then be separated by just one 150 metre field. This will promote resentment at the loss of an amenity, and will threaten the social cohesion within the Brookview estate. Local residents have expressed concern that the removal of existing boundary treatments will increase access to the Brookview estate from the new development and the A29. There is a perception that an influx of strangers to and through the estate will threaten the security and safety of the existing community. The wisdom of creating a new cycle route and footpath that runs from the A29 to the children’s play area and through the Brookview Estate has also been questioned; currently the play area is at the end of a quiet and relatively safe cul de sac.

1.5.7 There is an unfortunate history of incremental estate development within the village, with resultant lack of social cohesion between the separate Brooklands Way, Brookview, Silverdale and Arun Vale estates. We have been informed by long-standing local residents, that previous influxes of new residents, with so-called “suburban values”, have unduly influenced and distorted local decision-making processes. These long-standing residents have expressed the view that their values and standards are no longer recognised or represented. Adding yet another estate of 30 houses, right at the end of the village, will do nothing to improve this.

In the IROPI context, Policy SD64 is also not consistent with NPPF 115, 116, 117 and 118.

Lack of a collective vision for Policy SD64

2. One of the other principles of sustainable development, cited in the UK Government Vision and Circular 2010, is “ensuring a strong, healthy and just society.” This is corroborated by the first point of NPPF 17: “…planning should: be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings…” This advice is elaborated in NPPF 155: “Early and meaningful engagement and collaboration with neighbourhoods, local organisations and businesses is essential. A wide selection of the community should be proactively engaged, so that Local Plans, as far as possible, reflect a collective vision and a set of agreed priorities for the sustainable development of the area…” In this context, The Local Plan is not sound, because despite assertions made in 1.22 of the Local Plan, Policy SD64 was not formulated in consultation with the local community. There has been no formal Regulation 18 Consultation about Policy SD64. This is not coherent with the National Park’s Statement of Community Involvement.

2.2 A former housing allocation, known as Site HO015 Land at Brookland Way, and subsequently renamed for National Park purposes as Policy SD-WW11, was located in the lower southeastern portion of the flower-rich meadow situated at the western end of Coldwaltham village. SD-WW11 was subject to a 2015 Preferred Options Consultation in 2015 and withdrawn, in response to a variety of sound environmental objections made by a variety of agencies and individuals.

Policy SD64 did not come forward until March 2017

2.3 Another housing allocation, referred to as Policy SD63, appeared in a SDNPA Planning Committee document, nearly two years later, in March 2017. No map was given of the site, but a description of the Policy indicated that it was located in the northern part of the same flower-rich hay meadow. (source: Agenda Item 7 Report PC15/17, p.28) Since that date, Policy SD63 has been renumbered as Policy SD64 and has been through a number of iterations, with the latest version, (the tenth) appearing in the pre-submission Local Plan in September 2017.

2.4 None of the versions of Policy SD63/SD64 were subject to a Regulation 18 Consultation. Coldwaltham Parish Council sent a letter of objection about Policy SD64 to a plenary meeting of the Planning Committee and Board of the Authority on 15 June 2017, stating that the Authority had presented the Parish Council with a “fait accompli”. (source: copy of letter from Parish Council) The letter was acknowledged, but dismissed, the Deputy Chair of the Planning Committee commenting to the effect that“everyone has had plenty of time to make comments” (source: public record and eye witness accounts of Coldwaltham Meadow Conservation Group members). Subsequently, at a meeting of the Full Board and members of the Planning Committee on 11 July 2017, spoken representations, (each of three minutes duration, as permitted under National Park guidelines) objecting to the inclusion of Policy SD64 in the Local Plan, were made by the Coldwaltham Meadow Conservation Group and the Wiggonholt Association. In the discussion that followed, it was acknowledged that Policy SD64 was late in coming forward, and that Policy SD64 presented a problem for the Landscape-led Local Plan because it had an adverse effect on the Landscape. The Chair of the Planning Committee considered nonetheless that the overall rating for Policy SD64 was “neutral” and the Board agreed to endorse Policy SD64 as part of the pre-submission draft of the Local Plan. (source: public record and statements made by the Coldwaltham Meadow Conservation Group and the Wiggonholt Association)

Former objectors not notified about Policy SD64

2.5 Former objectors to Policy SD-WW11 were not notified of the new Allocation Policy SD64. This is in conflict with the National Park’s “Standards for Acknowledging and Reporting Back on Representations”: “…The South Downs National Park Authority will acknowledge any comments on Local Plan consultations received electronically. Anyone who comments early on the production process of a document will be included in the South Downs National Park’s electronic database and will automatically be informed of any consultation exercise that takes place at later stages in the process of producing a planning policy document.” (source: SDNPA Statement of Community involvement, 3.7, p18) Although the comments made by the objectors to SD-WW11 were made publicly available, (source: Preferred Options, View Comment, Comment Information) the National Park failed to inform the objectors about Policy SD64. (source: respondent Natalie Hunt, Comment ID 165, respondent Wiggonholt Association (Martin Vasey), Comment ID 1985.)

2.6 The Local Plan states, on p.8: “An informal round of consultation took place in autumn 2016 with all the town and parish councils of the National Park. This focused on Sites & Settlements and asked for the expert opinions of the town and parish councils on emerging Local Plan allocations and designations.” But allocation Policy SD64 did not come forward until March 2017.

2.7 In depriving the local community of a Regulation 18 Consultation about Policy SD64, and in failing to update the community about the many changes to Policy SD64, The National Park Authority has acted in conflict with its Local Plan and Statement of Community Involvement. Policy SD64 does not reflect a collective vision or a set of agreed priorities and is therefore not coherent with national policy guidelines on plan-making and community consultation, specifically the first point of NPPF 17, the first part of NPPF 69, the whole of NPPF155, and the principle of NPPF 188.

2.8 If the local community had been provided with a Regulation 18 Consultation, then the National Park would have been made aware of the importance of the flower-rich hay meadow as a biodiverse cultural heritage asset, and the other alternative sites that have been offered by local landowners could have come forward earlier. The ‘Call for Sites’ was so obscure that we have found no-one in the village who was aware of it; there has been no evidence presented by the National Park Authority of this process, which should be transparent and available for public scrutiny.