Rusper Neighbourhood Plan
2018 – 2031
Image donated by Ian Mulcahy
Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Published by Rusper Parish Council
17 July 2020
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 1 Rusper Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2031 Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Contents Rusper Neighbourhood Plan 2018 – 2031...... 2 Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner...... 2 1.Foreword - Coalescence...... 3 2.Planning Policy Context – Paragraph 3.8...... 3 3.Planning Policy Context – Paragraph 3.12...... 4 4.Planning Policy Context – Paragraph 3.14...... 4 5.Planning Policy Context – Plan C...... 5 6.Policy RUS1 – Landscape areas...... 5 7.Policy RUS2 – Brownfield developments...... 5 8.Policy RUS1 & RUS8 – Distinction against NPPF and HDPF...... 6 9.Policy RUS3 – Design...... 6 10.Policy RUS5 – Green infrastructure...... 6 11.Appendix D – Local Green Spaces Report...... 7 12.Local Green Spaces Representations...... 7 13.Local Gaps...... 7 14.Policy RUS9 – Community Facilities...... 8 15.Policy RUS7 – Local Green Spaces...... 8 16.Policy RUS9 – Community use viability...... 9 17.Policy RUS10 – School site...... 9 18.Policy RUS12 – Promoting Sustainable Transport...... 10 19.Policy Maps...... 10 20.Implementation...... 11 Appendix 1 – Proposed Changes To The Submission Plan...... 12 1. In response to questions 4 and 20...... 12 2. In response to questions 10...... 12 3. In response to questions 18...... 12 4. In response to questions 19...... 13 Appendix 2 – Copy of review confirmation letter to HDC...... 14 Appendix 3 – Copy of Millfields appeal decision...... 15
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 2 1. Foreword - Coalescence
Independent Examiner Question In the Foreword (fifth paragraph) there is a reference to ‘even small scale development’ leading to ‘the two towns becoming one large urban sprawl’. There is also a statement that ‘further development, especially to the West of Ifield, will be harmful to both the communities and the environment’. Where is the evidence on which these statements are based?
Parish Council Response The evidence for the small scale development leading to a coalescence of Horsham and Crawley is based on a study of the maps after the currently permitted developments are complete. This shows that once the final phase of Kilnwood Vale (DC/10/1612) and North Horsham (DC/16/1677) developments are complete and the development of the garage at Faygate (DC/19/0095) and a drive-through take-away along the A264 (DC/19/1913), all of which have initial planning consent, then the distance along the A264 separating the two towns is approximately 1 mile. This is split into two gaps: the one between North Horsham and the new take-away drive through at the Cherry Tree public house location; and the other between Park Road in Faygate and the Kilnwood Vale development. So a small scale development in either of these areas would effectively join the two towns as a ribbon development along the A264. A development to the West of Ifield, especially to the scale proposed by Homes England, would have a significant impact and we do not feel that this is disputed. The question is on how detrimental that impact would be. If the full scale of the 10,000 homes proposed, along with a new dual carriageway, went ahead then the majority of the rural area for the whole eastern half of Rusper Parish would be urbanised as effectively a part of Crawley in much the same way as the Kilnwood Vale development. It is clear from all of our responses from the parish residents that the rural nature of the environment is the most important thing to them, reference the initial questionnaire responses and subsequent consultations. This is a clear indication that it is harmful to the community. This is further supported by the responses of community groups in Ifield that represent the Crawley residents that are most affected. In terms of the environment, all of the areas along Ifield Brook and the River Mole are recognised flood plain and represent important wild-life habitat. Whilst proposals would seek to protect these specific flood plain areas, covering existing open fields and woods with housing, roads and commercial developments will inevitably lead to increased rain water run off, which will further jeopardise areas at risk of and already subject to flooding further downstream along the River Mole. No viable mitigation for wildlife habitat can overcome the overall loss of habitat that building on such a large area of open fields and woods would bring about.
2. Planning Policy Context – Paragraph 3.8
Independent Examiner Question Paragraph 3.8 refers to major allocations being proposed – by whom and in which document?
Parish Council Response The major allocations referred to are in North Horsham and in the Ifield and Kilnwood Vale areas, identified as Sites 10, 11, 12 and 13 within our site assessments document. They have all been considered by HDC and already have planning permission Site 10 – North Horsham, relates to HDC SHELAA reference SA296. This has outline approval for 2,750 home approximately 500 of which will fall within the Rusper plan area and work has just commenced on the initial infrastructure for that site. This development is now managed by Legal and
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 3 General. Latest planning application reference: DC/16/1677 Site 11 – Kilnwood Vale, relates to HDC SHELAA reference SA289. This will be one of the final phases of the Kilnwood Vale development. This development is managed by Crest Nicholson. Latest planning application reference: DC/10/1612 Site 12 – Rusper Road A, relates to HDC SHELAA reference SA272. This development along the Rusper Road in Ifield is just being completed and people are already living on site. This development is managed by Martin Grant Homes. Latest planning application reference: DC/13/0368 Site 13 – Rusper Road B, relates to HDC SHELAA reference SA468. This development along the Rusper Road in Ifield is well underway and people are already living on site. This development is managed by Bovis Homes. Latest planning application reference: DC/14/2132 These sites are also covered in the latest Horsham District Council SHELAA report https://rusper- np.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/SHELAA_RUSPER_DEC18.pdf and the earlier SHELAA https://www.horsham.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/66309/Rusper.pdf . This information is already listed on our website as part of the evidence base.
3. Planning Policy Context – Paragraph 3.12
Independent Examiner Question Paragraph 3.12 refers to Local Plan consultation in April 2018 and in paragraph 6.8 there is another reference to evidence dated April 2018. Is the Parish Council satisfied that these paragraphs accurately reflect the most up-to-date position, particularly in terms of the availability of evidence? If not, could appropriate amendments please be drawn up?
Parish Council Response In terms of the Rusper BUAB discussed in this section, we believe this is the most recent consultation, and includes information from the latest HDC BUAB review https://www.horsham.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/80081/Built-up-area-boundary- BUAB-review.pdf .
4. Planning Policy Context – Paragraph 3.14
Independent Examiner Question Paragraph 3.14 confirms that ‘the Parish Council will commit to an early review’ of the RNP (my underlining). Has that commitment been made in writing and could the Parish Council confirm that it will include a review of the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB)? See also question 20. below.
Parish Council Response RPC has committed to reviewing any site allocations in 2021, when the LPR has reached a stage where a revised housing requirement for the District and any housing number that may be distributed to the Parish (in line with NPPF paragraph 65) has been agreed and which is consistent with Rusper’s role in the settlement hierarchy. RPC has also committed to reviewing the current plan, to determine the need for any material modifications necessary to bring the policies up to date or where they may conflict with the policies of the emerging Local Plan. This is all written into the plan and this has been approved at a full RPC meeting. See attached Appendix 2, which is copy of the letter of confirmation of this to HDC. These reviews will include a review of the Built Up Area Boundary (BUAB).
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 4 5. Planning Policy Context – Plan C
Independent Examiner Question What is the justification for identifying Millfields Farm, ‘as not developable’ on Plan C (page 11)?
Parish Council Response In the conclusions section for this site (Site 9) in our site assessments the reasons given are: “This is a site that fails many sustainability issues and is outside the current built up area of the village in a prominent position at the top of an open area of grassland. However, Rusper Parish Council has long considered that it would benefit from some controlled development. Any development should be limited to the existing brownfield area and the number of units limited to a maximum of 14 to avoid access issues.” This view has been supported by Inspectors at appeal hearings for larger developments on this site of the type ruled out in this submission. See Appendix 3, which is a copy of the appeal decision from the Planning Inspectorate.
6. Policy RUS1 – Landscape areas
Independent Examiner Question Policy RUS1 identifies two areas where the landscape character should be retained – identified as SP1 and SP2. However, neither area correlates to an area identified on the Landscape Character Areas Map in the Landscape Character Assessment (Appendix H). It is not clear to me how the assessment of the 6 landscape character areas, set out in Table A, has resulted in the identification of the two Character sub areas SP1 and SP2. Is there any robust evidence that clearly demonstrates the justification for the identification of Character sub areas SP1 and SP2?
Parish Council Response The Landscape Character Assessment (Appendix H) provides a broad appraisal of all of the key areas of the plan area, based on the particular characteristics of each of the main areas LC1 to LC6. Initially, we had looked to include all of the larger assessment area LC3 as being important to establish the boundary with the new Kilnwood Vale development, but on advice were told to ensure that any specific spatial plan areas were clearly identifiable against field and other natural boundaries and only of a size to fulfil the minimum requirement that justified their inclusion. Hence the specific Spatial Plan area 1. Similarly for SP2, we had initially considered including all of LC4 and LC5, but again felt that it was better to be more focused and specific in the allocation of SP2 to protect the important habitat along Ifield Brook and to maintain the boundary with Crawley around the new development.
7. Policy RUS2 – Brownfield developments
Independent Examiner Question Policy RUS2 relates to rural diversification – primarily in terms of employment. How would a proposal for residential development on a brownfield site outside the BUAB be assessed?
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 5 Parish Council Response In section 5 of the plan the housing section identifies that development should be permitted where this is an improvement to a brownfield. In our site assessment for the Millfields site, which is an example of a proposal for residential development on a brownfield site, it clearly indicated that “... Rusper Parish Council has long considered that it would benefit from some controlled development. Any development should be limited to the existing brownfield area ...”. It is generally Rusper Parish Council practice to give preference to applications that closest reflect the current usage of any site, but if there are other considerations, such as commercial viability or community benefit, then this will be taken into consideration.
8. Policy RUS1 & RUS8 – Distinction against NPPF and HDPF
Independent Examiner Question There is the risk that policies within the RNP will, in effect, only repeat existing policies in the HDPF. Is the Parish Council satisfied that the policies in the RNP are sufficiently distinctive (for example policies RUS1 and RUS8)?
Parish Council Response We agree that it is not good practice to repeat specific existing policies from broader plans such as the HDPF and NPPF and have tried to restrict our policies to more specific detail in relation to the local area needs. In your examples for RUS1 and RUS8, we accept that wider protections might generally apply, but felt that by identifying specific local areas and the reason for concern, this would provide useful policy guidance.
9. Policy RUS3 – Design
Independent Examiner Question Policy RUS3 Design refers to development being of the highest design standards; meeting heat insulation and noise insulation standards; being in accordance with the energy hierarchy; and meeting the National Model Design Code. How would a decision maker know what specific standards are expected, what the energy hierarchy is, and what the status of the National Model Design Code is?
Parish Council Response We would expect any decision maker to be generally aware of the current design standards, especially the National Design Code (see https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/84 3468/National_Design_Guide.pdf ). Where they may not be familiar with the specifics of the latest standards, we would hope that the guidance in this policy helps to identify those that are most important to the local area so that they can reference them.
10. Policy RUS5 – Green infrastructure
Independent Examiner Question In policy RUS5 there is reference to the Green Infrastructure Network. Why is this not shown on the Policies Map?
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 6 Parish Council Response It was felt that this information would overload the policy map and as it is included in descriptions and other maps it was felt better to omit it and add in the specific references to the maps in th Appendix. Is this acceptable or should we reproduce those maps in the main document?
11. Appendix D – Local Green Spaces Report
Independent Examiner Question Appendix D provides justification for the LGS proposals. However, the District Council considers that two sites (9: Kilnwood Copse and 10: Friday Street) are not close to the community that they serve. What is the Parish Council’s justification for these two sites in terms of meeting test 2, as set out in Appendix D ?
Parish Council Response Kilnwood Copse will be close to the new community in Kilnwood Vale, especially when the section north of the railway line, within the plan area, is completed and will form an important green space for that community as well as the wider parish. Whilst the verge in Friday Street is more than 5 minutes from the main settlement in Rusper Village, it is part of one of the key walks from the village, highlighted in a local booklet of walks. As explained in the appendix “Because of its location on the approach to the village, it is experienced daily by many residents” and for these reasons it felt that test 2, although not entirely met, did not rule out this site.
12. Local Green Spaces Representations
Independent Examiner Question The District Council refers to Regulation 14 representations opposed to some of the LGS designations and others suggesting the identification of additional sites as LGS. Where is the evidence that these representations were considered, and appropriate conclusions drawn?
Parish Council Response All responses were discussed in detail at the monthly Neighbourhood Planning meetings and recommendations submitted to the full RPC meetings for further discussion and approval. These are the published responses to the LGS consultation https://rusper-np.org.uk/wp- content/uploads/2019/08/LGS-consultation-response-redacted.pdf and these are the supporting minutes https://rusper-np.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/minutes-agendas-newsletters/NPMinutes_2019- 08-20.pdf. The LGS objections were repeated in the Reg 14 objections. We are not aware of any other sites being suggested as LGS sites. After the Reg 14 period, we had committed to submit the NP to HDC and were not able to consult on further changes at that stage. Any additional LGS designation proposals will be considered at review stage.
13. Local Gaps
Independent Examiner Question It is not clear to me how the boundary of the proposed Local Gap has been decided. Section 6 of Appendix H refers to an Assessment of Local Gaps but only one Gap has been included in Table B of the Appendix. Is there any further robust evidence to justify this proposal?
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 7 Parish Council Response It was originally intended to additionally include Sp1 And SP2 as Local Gaps, but it was felt that these did not fulfil all of the criteria for a Local Gap. The boundary for the LG1 was decided based on natural field and landscape borders. Initially it was drawn as a broad swathe between Rusper Village and Lambs Green, but professional advice, from our planning consultants Oneill Homer, suggested that it should follow natural features such as hedge lines and be limited to areas that would specifically impact on the separation of the two settlements.
14. Policy RUS9 – Community Facilities
Independent Examiner Question The District Council observes1 that ‘several’ of the LGS sites are also identified as community facility sites under policy RUS9. From my interpretation of Policy Map Inset 1, however, it appears to me that the only such site is the High Street Recreational Ground. Nevertheless, policy RUS9 advises that the partial redevelopment of community sites may be acceptable in certain circumstances. However, this would appear to be in conflict with the LGS designation which is intended to be ‘long-term’ in nature. How would a decision maker know what weight to attach to the LGS designation, as opposed to any redevelopment benefits?
Parish Council Response This was added as there has been some discussion about changing the location of the pavilion at the recreation field when it reaches the end of its life. This clause was to allow for flexibility for layout, without changing the overall use. It would probably be good for RPC to add a paragraph to the plan to clarify the circumstances where redevelopment would be acceptable.
15. Policy RUS7 – Local Green Spaces
Independent Examiner Question What is the justification for the identification of LGS: (a) adjacent to Pucks Croft Cottage, particularly the portion of the site under Title Number WSX287217 (see representations 9 Part 2 and 10 Part 2); and (b) at Rusper Glebe (see representation 7)?
Parish Council Response Both of these sites represent green spaces adjacent to the built-up boundary of the village. They meet the criteria within the NPPF to be recognised as they provide a tranquil setting to the footpaths that run along side them. On the basis that a Local Green Space is required to satisfy the criteria of NPPF Para 100, which says: 100. The Local Green Space designation should only be used where the green space is: (a) in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; (b) demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and (c) local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.
1Sub-section 6 in response to Policy RUS7.
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 8 Land Adjacent to Pucks Croft Cottage (a) The land lies on the southern edge of the built up boundary of Rusper village opposite local housing and is therefore considered to be in reasonable proximity to the local community. A public footpath crosses the area and the fields have been used by local residents as informal access for recreation for many years. (b) It is used by local people for informal recreation and is highly valued for its rural character and tranquillity; the footpath forms part of a circular route highlighted in the local booklet of walks around the village. There are views across the area from the public footpath and the area has an unspoilt rural character. The ancient hedges and mature native broadleaf trees are a habitat for a diverse range of species. (c) The area identified is just over 3 hectares, which is not extensive and very much local in character being mostly woodland with some open field and hedgerow. Glebe Field (a) The land lies on the northern edge of the built up boundary of Rusper village next to the church, the old rectory and the current rectory, it is therefore considered to be in reasonable proximity to the local community. Additionally, a public footpath runs across the northern boundary, with car parking space on the adjacent recreation ground. (b) Glebe Field is demonstrably special to the community with regard to its historic significance through its association with the church and being surrounded by the old rectory and the current rectory; the field is part of the historic core of the village and lies within the conservation area. (c) Glebe Field is accessed through footpaths leading from the main road through the village and through the church and although a relatively small area (just over half a hectare), Glebe Field is valued for its tranquillity and old, established hedgerows, which support a wealth of wildlife. Despite limited access into the field, a footpath runs along its northern edge and visitors can park along this edge to enjoy the tranquillity and wildlife. It is an easily accessed oasis of calm on the edge of the village. (d) The area identified is just over half a hectare, which is not extensive and very much local in character being mostly open field and hedgerow.
16. Policy RUS9 – Community use viability
Independent Examiner Question What evidence would the Parish Council expect to be provided with, regarding the assessment of the viability of an established community use (see policy RUS9)?
Parish Council Response This is a difficult question to answer. For example, the village stores struggles to be a financially viable enterprise, but provides a critical role in the village. In this case a change that increased its financial viability might be a consideration, but equally a change that increased the level of local provision could be a consideration. The evidence for either would be different. We would therefore expect it to be relevant to support either a financial case or an improvement in facility.
17. Policy RUS10 – School site
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 9 Independent Examiner Question Could the Parish Council please explain the purpose of the third paragraph of policy RUS10? Is there any likelihood that the primary school and village hall will cease to operate on their current sites?
Parish Council Response The school especially is at risk following the recent government changes to funding (see https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-funding-formula-tables-for-schools-and-high- needs-2020-to-2021) and the effects of the major development of the North Horsham site and eventually two new primary schools. It is difficult to predict the North Horsham overall impact for the school, in terms of a positive impact of more houses and a negative impact of more schools. The village hall is old and has limited car parking. If a suitable site and funding became available then the combined existing site could provide a better solution for either one if the other moved. This is unclear at the moment, thus the extra paragraph.
18. Policy RUS12 – Promoting Sustainable Transport
Independent Examiner Question Paragraph 6.69 states that the Movement Routes have been identified and defined in the policy. I do not consider that to be the case and would expect to see a list of the routes specifically included in the policy. Could the Parish Council please suggest some appropriate revised wording for the policy on that basis?
Parish Council Response The Parish Council acknowledges that Movement Routes have not been clearly identified and the examiner is correct in suggesting that Policy RUS12 needs rewording as a result. At this stage, it seems the best option is to remove the reference to Movement Routes in this policy, especially as in terms of road traffic designations there are no A or B routes, which would normally form the backbone of such routes. We would suggest that the wording of policy RUS12 becomes: All new developments should ensure safe access to existing cycle and pedestrian routes where these exist. Where possible, schemes should take available opportunities to improve and extend the footpath and cycle network in order to provide better connectivity throughout the parish. Where new developments may severely impact upon non-motorised movement, appropriate mitigation measures towards the mitigation of traffic volumes and speed through the Parish will be expected, providing they do not introduce urbanising highways infrastructure into the street-scene, and they accord with other policies of the development plan As, the key areas of concern have been identified in the preceding paragraphs and Appendix G, we would suggest that the wording of paragraph 6.69 becomes: 6.69 From this evidence, the areas of main concern have been identified and development should have regard to these in their schemes. Any mitigation measures must be carefully designed and located to reflect the rural character of The Parish and not require highways infrastructure – signage, barriers, pavements – that is more appropriate to an urban location.
19. Policy Maps
Independent Examiner Question What is the blue boundary included on policy Maps RUS1 (SP1) and RUS1 (SP2)?
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 10 Parish Council Response The blue lines are parish boundaries. In RUS1 it is just the eastern boundary of Rusper Parish. In RUS2 it is the eastern boundary of Rusper Parish, which then runs along the railway line to form the southern boundary. The blue line that continues across the railway is the eastern boundary of Colgate Parish. We propose to add this information to the key for these maps.
20. Implementation
Independent Examiner Question The monitoring and review of Plans is an important component in the plan-making process, in order to ascertain whether or not the policies are effective. Aside from the brief reference in paragraph 3.14, I could find no further reference in the RNP to the monitoring of the policies or to the future role of the Parish Council in this process. Bearing in mind the likelihood that the RNP will be reviewed relatively soon, I would have expected the Plan to include a brief summary of how the process will evolve in the short to medium term. I would welcome the views of the Parish Council as to why these matters have not been addressed in the RNP and some appropriate wording which summarises the situation.
Parish Council Response All planning matters that come before Rusper Parish Council would be judged against the Rusper Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to the wider HDPF, the emerging Horsham District Council Local Plan and NPPF guidance. In each case the relevance of the current RNP would be considered. RPC will monitor the effectiveness of the policies against planning decisions regularly through its monthly planning meetings and continually review the RNP at those meetings. RPC would expect to meet with HDC as needed to discuss any policies which are in need of review. This is in addition to attending the formal briefings provided by HDC on the planning process generally. Specifically, RPC have committed to a formal review of the RNP in 2021and this would be undertaken by the wider Rusper Neighbourhood Plan Group that was responsible for the drafting of the current plan. Note that this group includes members of the wider community, outside of the parish councillors who are all members. If it is acceptable, we can add these commitments to section 7 of the plan, which covers Implementation.
A list of all proposed changes to the submitted plan are shown in Appendix 1.
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 11 Appendix 1 – Proposed Changes To The Submission Plan
1. In response to questions 4 and 20 To clarify the position on review of the plan, it would be possible to add a brief addition to section 7 of the plan, which covers implementation. The change would be a sub-section at the end of this section as below: Plan Review 7.6 All planning matters that come before Rusper Parish Council would be judged against the Rusper Neighbourhood Plan, in addition to the wider HDPF, the emerging Horsham District Council Local Plan and NPPF guidance. In each case, the relevance of the current Rusper Neighbourhood Plan would be considered. Rusper Parish Council will monitor the effectiveness of the policies against planning decisions regularly through its monthly planning meetings and continually review the Rusper Neighbourhood Plan at those meetings. 7.7 Rusper Parish Council would expect to meet with Horsham District Council as needed to discuss any policies which are in need of review. This is, in addition to attending the formal briefings provided by Horsham District Council on the planning process generally. 7.8 Specifically, Rusper Parish Council have committed to a formal review of the Rusper Neighbourhood Plan in 2021and this would be undertaken by the wider Rusper Neighbourhood Plan Group that was responsible for the drafting of the current plan. Note that this group includes members of the wider community, outside of the parish councillors who are all members.
2. In response to questions 10 If the examiner feel that the Green Infrastructure Network must to be identified on a policy map, in addition to the descriptions in the appendix and supporting documents. The proposed change would be to add additional policy maps, after Policy Map RUS1 (Character sub area SP2) and before Policy Map RUS8 Local Gap 1, as below:
Policy Map RUS5 A to D {Maps to 1, 2 & 4 from Appendix B and the map from Appendix C}
3. In response to questions 18 As “Movement Routes” are not defined, the references need to be removed. The proposed change is that the wording of policy RUS12 becomes: All new developments should ensure safe access to existing cycle and pedestrian routes where these exist. Where possible, schemes should take available opportunities to improve and extend the footpath and cycle network in order to provide better connectivity throughout the parish. Where new developments may severely impact upon non-motorised movement, appropriate mitigation measures towards the mitigation of traffic volumes and speed through the Parish will be expected, providing they do not introduce urbanising highways infrastructure into the street-scene, and they accord with other policies of the development plan Additionally, the wording of paragraph 6.69 becomes:
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 12 6.69 From this evidence, the areas of main concern have been identified and development should have regard to these in their schemes. Any mitigation measures must be carefully designed and located to reflect the rural character of The Parish and not require highways infrastructure – signage, barriers, pavements – that is more appropriate to an urban location.
4. In response to questions 19 To clarify the RUS1 policy maps it is proposed that we add the meaning of blue line to the key for the maps, as below:
Policy Map RUS1 (Character sub area SP1)
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan Spatial Plan Map 1: November 2019 RUS1 Character Sub Area SP1
Parish Boundary
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 13 Policy Map RUS1 (Character sub area SP2)
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan Spatial Plan Map 2: November 2019 RUS1 Character Sub Area SP2
Parish Boundary
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 14 Appendix 2 – Copy of review confirmation letter to HDC
Clerk to Council: Mrs Leanne Bannister c/o Rusper Village Stores East street Rusper RH12 4PX
07871 340986 [email protected] www.rusper-pc.org.uk
Mr T Saunders, Interim Head of Strategic Planning By email: [email protected], [email protected] 31st May 2019 Dear Mr Saunders RE: The Future of Neighbourhood Planning In response to your letter dated 13th March 2019, I confirm that Rusper Parish Council are continuing with their Neighbourhood Plan and are on track to reach Regulation 15 by the end of summer 2019. Please note that the Steering Group has not allocated land for development in this Plan. This is due to the review of the District’s spatial strategy. The Parish Council does not want HDC to allocate sites on their behalf within the Local Plan; they will review site allocations in 2021 when the Local Plan Review has reached a stage where a revised housing requirement for the District and any housing number that may be distributed to the Parish (in line with NPPF paragraph 65) has been agreed and which is consistent with Rusper’s role in the settlement hierarchy.
Once this evidence is available the Parish Council will consider any resulting opportunities to allocate local needs housing on small and medium sites consistent with NPPF paragraphs 68 and 69. It will also review the plan to determine the need for any material modifications necessary to bring the policies up to date where they may conflict with the policies of the emerging Local Plan.
Kind regards L Bannister Leanne Bannister Clerk to Rusper Parish Council
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 15 Appendix 3 – Copy of Millfields appeal decision
Appeal Decision Hearing held on 31 May 2017 Site visit made on 31 May 2017
by AJ Steen BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI
an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government
Decision date: 14 July 2017
Appeal Ref: APP/Z3825/W/17/3166501 Millfields Farm, Horsham Road, Rusper, West Sussex RH12 4PR
• The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant outline planning permission. • The appeal is made by Magenta Holdings GP against the decision of Horsham District Council. • The application Ref DC/15/2857, dated 23 December 2015, was refused by notice dated 7 July 2016. • The development proposed is demolition of the existing dwellings and vacant buildings, and erection of 29 new dwellings with associated landscaping, open space and access.
Decision
1. The appeal is dismissed.
Preliminary Matters
2. The application was submitted in outline with all matters reserved except access. I have dealt with the appeal on that basis, treating the site layout plans as illustrative. The appearance, layout, scale and landscaping (the reserved matters) are reserved for consideration at a later stage.
3. An executed Unilateral Undertaking under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 was provided prior to the Hearing, which seeks to overcome the reason for refusal relating to contributions toward the provision of affordable housing and infrastructure improvements within the local area.
Main Issue
4. Whether the location of the proposed development would be consistent with the strategy for development set out within the Horsham District Planning Framework, or if there are any material considerations sufficient to override any conflict with policy.
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 16 Reasons
5. Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 requires that the appeal should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In this case the Horsham District Planning Framework (HDPF) comprises the development plan for the area. I understand that a Neighbourhood Plan (NP) is currently being prepared for Rusper and this site is included within the NP area, but this is at an early Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/17/3166501
stage and, as such, can carry very little weight in the consideration of this appeal.
6. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) is a material consideration that carries great weight in the planning process. It seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing, including through local planning authorities identifying the objectively assessed needs for housing and identifying sites to provide five years’ worth of housing against their requirements. In this case, it is not disputed that the Council are able to demonstrate a 5 year housing land supply so that, in accordance with paragraph 49 of the NPPF, relevant policies for the supply of housing within the HDPF are up-to-date and should be given full weight.
7. The NPPF provides a presumption in favour of sustainable development that means approving development proposals that accord with the development plan without delay. Sustainable development has three dimensions that must be considered together, being economic, social and environmental.
Strategy for development
8. Millfields Farm is located on the edge of Rusper, outside and adjacent to the built up area boundary to the village as defined on the HDPF Proposals Map. It is on the ridge of a hill, with views to and from the site outside the settlement, such that the site is prominent in the wider landscape. The appeal site contains a number of former equestrian buildings of utilitarian appearance with surrounding hardstanding and sand schools. Access would be provided from the existing vehicular access from Horsham Road to six dwellings, with an additional access proposed across a paddock from East Street that would enable access to the remainder of the site.
9. Policy 1 of the HDPF indicates that planning applications which accord with the policies within the plan will be approved without delay, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Policies 2-4 set out a strategy of development, seeking to focus development in and around Horsham, with growth in the rest of the district in accordance with the settlement hierarchy, set out in Policy 3. Rusper is defined as a smaller village within that policy, with limited services, facilities and social networks but with good accessibility to larger settlements where residents can access most of their requirements. Policy 4 sets out how proposals that
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 17 would result in the expansion of settlements would be considered.
10. A number of criteria are set out as to how expansion of settlements would take place in Policy 4 of the HDPF. The first requires that sites must be allocated within the Local Plan or in a NP. It is clear that the proposed development would not comply with that criterion. However, development of the site could be capable of complying with all the other criteria. These include that the expansion should be appropriate to the scale and function of the settlement and be contained within a defensible boundary, in this case comprising fences, bunds and mature tree planting, with landscape and townscape character features maintained and enhanced.
11. Policy 26 is a strategic policy relating to countryside protection, including enabling the sustainable development of rural areas, as well as seeking to protect, conserve or enhance the landscape character of the area. It requires that development within the countryside is essential to its countryside location.
2 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/17/3166501
12. The extent of the area of the site that comprises previously developed land has not been agreed between the parties, but it is clear that the access route from East Street cannot be defined as such. Other areas of the site are more open and may not comprise previously developed land, although this is not of great significance given my conclusion that the proposed development would be outside the built up area boundary and contrary to HDPF policies.
13. Given lack of recent use, the existing buildings are no longer in a good condition, but their appearance does reflect their previous use within the surrounding rural landscape. By contrast, a housing estate would have a different appearance that could result in a more suburban appearance to the site that would harm the character and appearance of the surrounding rural landscape. In addition, built development is likely to extend over areas of the site that are currently essentially open. However, these issues could be mitigated at reserved matters stage through details of the layout and appearance, such that a development of the previously developed parts of the site would result in an improvement to the character and appearance of the area. This would particularly benefit users of the footpaths through the site as these would be opened up and provided with more space as part of the proposed public open space within the site.
14. The access road from East Street would provide access to 23 of the new dwellings so would be in frequent use. It would be designed as a rural lane, under-engineered to reflect this rural location. Although I accept the design would limit the impact on the landscape character, this is a particularly prominent position within the landscape and on the
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 18 edge of the village, where it would result in a significant change in the landscape. Although a landscaping scheme may reduce that effect, it would not wholly overcome that harm. As such, the proposed development would result in harm to the landscape character of the area.
15. Policy 40 of the HDPF seeks to promote a sustainable transport system, re- balancing in favour of non-car modes of transport. There are limited bus services to and from Rusper and surrounding roads are not attractive routes for cycling with services outside the village beyond a reasonable walking distance. Whilst increases in home working and home deliveries would reduce the need to travel and a travel plan may influence transport choices along with highway improvements that would be provided through contributions, most access to and from the site would be by car.
16. For these reasons, I conclude that the proposed development would be contrary to the development strategy for the district, in particular Policy 4 of the HDPF and, as a consequence, also Policies 1 and 2 of the HDPF. In addition, the proposed development would harm the landscape character of the area and would not promote a sustainable transport system, contrary to Policies 26 and 40 of the HDPF. This conflict with the development plan policies carries great weight in the planning process.
Other material considerations
17. As set out above, the NPPF seeks to boost significantly the supply of housing and the proposed development would contribute toward housing supply within the district. Policy 15 of the HDPF indicates that at least 16,000 dwellings should be provided throughout the district, including at least 1,500 through NPs and 750 windfall units. I understand that the Council are currently over-
3 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/17/3166501
supplying in terms of windfall units, which come from sites that are not allocated for development but unexpectedly become available, although they would normally comply with policies contained within the HDPF. Consequently, although the housing requirements are not a cap on delivery of homes, the proposed development is not necessary to contribute toward the Council’s housing figures and so the contribution to the supply of housing can only carry moderate weight in this instance.
18. The Council’s Strategic Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA) suggests that the site could be developed with a capacity of 25 units. However, the SHELAA is a background document that assists in the assessment of sites during the preparation of planning policy and does not allocate sites for development. I do not consider that it would add to the weight I have given to the provision of dwellings as set out above.
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 19 19. I have referred to the stage of preparation of the NP above and this site may be considered for allocation through that process. I understand that the Council intend to carry out an early review of the HDPF at which point this site may be promoted for allocation, although there is no certainty of the outcome of these processes at this stage, so these matters cannot influence my decision.
20. Affordable housing has been provided within the village to meet the identified requirements of the most recent housing needs survey. Whilst that may no longer be up to date, it is the latest information available and the need for further affordable housing from this scheme needs to be viewed in this light. Four of the 29 dwellings are proposed to be affordable units and, having taken account of a viability assessment, this has been agreed with the Council. This is substantially less than required by Policy 16 of the HDPF that requires 35% of dwellings on sites of this size to be affordable. Given these circumstances, I attach limited weight to the provision of affordable homes within this scheme.
21. The Unilateral Undertaking submitted relates to provision of or financial contributions toward affordable housing and infrastructure improvements and has been agreed with the Council, such that it would overcome the related reason for refusal. I have been provided with detailed justification by the Council that demonstrates the financial contributions would meet the requirements of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended), including relating to pooling restrictions. I am satisfied that the contributions would meet those requirements. As such, these contributions comply with Policy 39 of the HDPF that requires local infrastructure to meet the needs of the development. It would comprise a material consideration in favour of the development of moderate weight.
22. The planning application was also refused due the effect of the development on biodiversity features, specifically the loss of bat roosts, contrary to Policy 31 of the HDPF that seeks to ensure development would not have an adverse impact on sites or features for biodiversity. The Council and appellant have agreed that this matter could be overcome by condition and I see no reason to disagree with their conclusions on this matter. If I were to allow the appeal, I would attach an appropriate condition.
23. Two accesses are proposed to the site from East Street and Horsham Road. That from Horsham Road would support six dwellings and that from East Street would support the remainder of the development. These accesses would provide safe access to the development.
4 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/17/3166501
24. I note that there is some support for the redevelopment of this site within the
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 20 village and that development of the site has been subject of public consultation, previous applications and discussions with the Council. However, these matters would not outweigh the conflict with policy arising from the proposed development.
25. There would be economic benefits arising from the development in the form of employment during construction and expenditure in local business and future residents would contribute toward the viability of services and facilities within the village and surrounding area. The provision of dwellings of a mix of sizes and types would have a social benefit in providing for multiple housing needs as well as prospective residents contributing toward the social life of the village, strengthening community and inclusiveness. Provision of public open space within the development would contribute to the social welfare of local residents. These benefits add moderate weight in favour of the scheme.
Conclusion
26. For the reasons given above and taking all matters into account, I conclude that the demolition of the existing buildings and dwellings and development of 29 dwellings with associated landscaping, open space and access would be contrary to the relevant policies of the Council’s development plan. Whilst there are a number of material considerations in favour of the scheme, they mostly relate to the basic requirements of development plan policy and are not of such weight, either individually or cumulatively, as to warrant a decision other than in accordance with the aforementioned development plan. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed. AJ Steen
INSPECTOR
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 21 5 Appeal Decision APP/Z3825/W/17/3166501
APPEARANCES
FOR THE APPELLANT:
Anna Lewis Appellant
Peter Edwards MRTPI Carter Jonas
Harry Groucott ARB RIBA MH Architects Limited
Alex Budd RGP
FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:
Adrian Smith MRTPI Senior Planning Officer, Horsham District Council
James Webster MRTPI Senior Planning Officer Policy, Horsham District Council
INTERESTED PERSONS:
George Sallows Rusper Parish Council
Graham Hill Chairman, Rusper Parish Council
Paul Sharpe MRTPI Paul Sharpe Associates LLP on behalf of Mr Richardson and Miss Colyer, Millfield House
John Richardson Millfield House
Pamela Waugh Millfield Rise
David Bowden Coach House
DRAWINGS:
Drawings submitted with the planning application (100 Rev. D Site Location Plan and Existing Photography, 102 Existing Site Plan and Existing Photography, 103 Rev. D Proposed Overall Site Layout, 104 Rev. B Proposed Site Layout, 105 Rev. B Proposed Site Layout, 111 Rev. B Existing Site (footpaths)) and 1645-1001 Rev. 03 Landscape Strategy, 106 Rev. A and 107 Rev. A Proposed Indicative Elevations & Street Scenes, 108 Rev. A Proposed Indicative Aerial Views and 110 Rev. C Proposed Site Layout with Brownfield Boundary Overlay.
Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 22 Rusper Neighbourhood Plan - Statement in Response to the Initial Comments of the Independent Examiner Page 23