oneill homer

RUSPER NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN

REGULATION 14 REPORT: OCTOBER 2019

Purpose

1. The purpose of this report is to summarise part of the outcome of the consultation period on the Pre-Submission Rusper Neighbourhood Plan held from 2 September to 14 October 2019. The report reviews the representations made by some of the statutory consultees, and by developers/landowners. It then makes recommendations for minor modifications to the Plan for its submission to District Council.

2. The report will be published by the ‘qualifying body’, Rusper Parish Council, and it will be appended to the Consultation Statement that will accompany the submitted Plan in due course and in line with the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 (as amended).

Consultation Analysis & Recommendations

3. During the consultation period, representations were made by Homes (promoting significant land interests within Rusper as part of the Horsham Local Plan Review), Sport England, Gladman, Chichester Diocese and Evison & Company on behalf of Chichester Diocese, Barton Willmore (on behalf of Legal and General), Lewis & Co Planning (on behalf of the Director of Hotel Operations of Boundless in relation to Ghyll Manor), Bell Cornwell (on behalf of Denton Homes and Mary Hurst), ECE Planning (on behalf of Mr Simon Bastable), Don Burstow (on behalf of Daniel and Sophie Burstow and Diana Miles), Natural England, Thames Water, Surrey County Council, West County Council, Highways England and Council (HDC) as the Local Planning Authority.

4. Sport England, Natural England, and Surrey County Council had no specific comments to make on the policies of the plan.

5. Homes England highlights that the specific reference to a 2,000m separation between Horsham and Crawley is factually incorrect. It is recommended that the Steering Group satisfies itself that the statement within the Foreword to the Plan is suitably justified perhaps by including this distance on the 2018 SHELAA map.

6. It is also noted, that Homes England also suggests that the opportunity for development of Land West of Ifield is underplayed in Sections 2 and 3 of the Plan given the history of proposals in this area. Such a significant proposal (described in paragraph 3.8 and 3.10) which has only recently been announced is a matter for the Horsham Local Plan Review and is entirely supposition as far as the current neighbourhood plan is concerned.

7. The mechanism for considering proposals, particularly those that ‘anticipate and respond to long-term requirements and opportunities, such as those arising from

Rusper Neighbourhood Plan: Regulation 14 Summary Report 1 major improvements in infrastructure’ (§22) should be considered through strategic policies. As this option is yet to be tested through the plan-making process, the most appropriate channel to respond to such proposals, including the option being promoted by Homes England, is through the formal channels with the Local Planning Authority at appropriate stages through the Local Plan Review.

8. A Neighbourhood Plan can come forward before a spatial development strategy is in place and it will not be tested against the policies of an emerging plan. However, the reasoning and evidence base informing the local plan process is likely to be relevant (PPG ID 41-009-20190509). The latest update with regards to the Local Plan Review does not include a preferred option and therefore Paragraphs 3.8 and 3.9 sets out how the Neighbourhood Plan has had regard to this process.

9. There is no mechanism in legislation that requires Neighbourhood Plans to be reviewed, however as set out in Paragraph 3.12 the Parish Council has committed to undertaking a review once up-to-date evidence becomes available. It is therefore considered that no specific amendments are required to the Plan.

10. Barton Willmore suggests that the Land North of Horsham approved planning application should be included on the Policies Map. The purpose of a Policies Map is to identify where the plan’s policies apply, it is not necessary to include the location of consented land, however if the Steering Group consider it necessary to demonstrate this matter it can be included in Section 2 of the plan. Barton Willmore also confirms that its proposals accord with the relevant policies of the plan, but seeks further clarification on the scope of the proposed entry gates in Policy RUS 13 (see below).

11. Thames Water have requested policies regarding new water/wastewater infrastructure. This neighbourhood plan does not allocate housing development, nonetheless the issue is understood, and it is noted that Policy 39 Strategic Policy: Infrastructure Provision in the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015 deals with this matter. It is recommended that the Steering Group notes this requirement for the future review of the Neighbourhood Plan.

12. County Council highlights that the Parish is underlain by brick clay which is a safeguarded resource under Policy M9 of the West Sussex Joint Minerals Local Plan 2018. This means that development within the parish may be subject to a minerals resource assessment to ensure that viable mineral resources are not permanently sterilised. Although the plan does not allocate land for development, it is recommended that paragraph 3.13 is updated to accurately reflect this matter. Specific comments on education are considered under the policy heading below.

13. HDC and Highways England notes that the plan does not allocate, and a review will be undertaken once the emerging Horsham Local Plan is adopted, which is expected in 2021. In general, HDC considers that the Steering group have fully engaged with the relevant stakeholders to a produce a neighbourhood plan supported by a robust evidence base and that the plan meets the Basic Conditions and will contribute positively towards sustainable development and improving the quality of the environment. Specific comments in relation to HDC’s comments on Local Green Spaces are considered under the policy heading below.

Rusper Neighbourhood Plan: Regulation 14 Summary Report 2

14. Bell Cornwell (on behalf of Denton Homes) criticise the absence of a policy on housing mix and tenure given a Housing Needs Assessment had been completed. Additionally, Bell Cornwell (on behalf of Denton Homes and Mary Hurst) consider that the decision to ‘postpone’ allocation means that the plan does not meet its ‘basic conditions’ given that §66 of the NPPF allows for an indicative figure based on the latest evidence of local housing need. §66 is only engaged if requested by the qualifying body and the scope of a Neighbourhood Plan does not need to include housing allocations. The reasons for not doing so is clearly set out in the plan and in adopting this approach, the Parish Council has been made aware of the risks.

15. Highways England comments concentrate on proposed housing numbers across the District and the importance of HDC’s Transport Study supporting the emerging Local Plan. The opportunity for neighbourhood plans to influence such matters are limited, however, it does seek to highlight the existing transport issues in the parish of Rusper and how it can be part of the solution to the existing issues, particularly regarding Policies RUS12 and RUS13. Additionally, the Parish Council continues to remain committed to working with HDC and West Sussex CC (the Highways Authority) in continuing a dialogue on traffic calming measures in the Parish. It is therefore recommended that the Parish Council highlights this response to HDC and continues to engage with HDC through the preparation of its Local Plan and supporting transport evidence and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

16. A further summary analysis of these representations is provided in respect of each policy below, together with recommendations on making modifications for the final version of the Plan:

RUS1 – Spatial Plan

17. Homes England and Gladman consider that the policy seeks to undermine the future strategic growth of Crawley. The policy is seeking to reflect the status of the settlements in the parish as currently identified in the HDPF. While the policy may become out of date when the new Horsham Local Plan is adopted, nevertheless the purpose of the policy is to define the Parish as currently set out in the HDPF. We recommend however that the policy is amended to read as an earlier version to avoid confusion with the purpose of RUS8 and worded as follows:

RUS1: Spatial Plan

The Neighbourhood Plan defines the built-up area boundary for Rusper, as shown on the Policies Map, for the purpose of applying Policy 4 of the Horsham District Framework. Development proposals should conserve the open and tranquil character of the intervening landscape and its views at the following locations:

SP1 Between Ifield and Ifieldwood; and SP2 Kilnwood Vale, Crawley and Lambs Green.

Proposals which would either individually or cumulatively, unacceptably harm or detract from the distinctive landscape character and separation of these areas, as defined on the Policies Map, will not be supported.

Rusper Neighbourhood Plan: Regulation 14 Summary Report 3

18. Bell Cornwell (on behalf of Denton Homes) consider that the settlement boundary should be amended to include sites for development. The reasons why this is unnecessary is clearly set out in the plan in section 3. Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 104 Reference ID: 41-104-20190509 states “The scope of neighbourhood plans is up to the neighbourhood planning body. Where strategic policies set out a housing requirement figure for a designated neighbourhood area, the neighbourhood planning body does not have to make specific provision for housing, or seek to allocate sites to accommodate the requirement (which may have already been done through the strategic policies or through non-strategic policies produced by the local planning authority)…”

RUS3 – Design

19. Homes England suggest that criteria viii. should remove reference to specific technologies and should be replaced with generic reference to the most suitable technologies at that point in time. It is not considered that the policy is restricting specific features, however the publication of the National Design Guide in September which confirms the Government’s intention to publish a National Model Design Code in early 2020 and the fact that neighbourhood plans should be able to demonstrate how their policies contribute to the requirements of the Climate Change Act, for clarity it is recommended that the criteria be revised to accommodate this and the comment.

RUS5 – Green Infrastructure and Biodiversity

20. Homes England supports the policy.

RUS7 – Local Green Spaces

21. The District Council highlights issues regarding some of the proposed Local Green Spaces and the extent to which they meet the NPPF tests set out in paragraph 100.

22. The Diocese expresses their disappointment at not having an opportunity to discuss the designation of Glebe Field with the Parish Council prior to the publication of the Regulation 14 Plan and considers that it does not meet the tests of designation. Its representatives, Evison & Company, sets out in detail why it considers that the space does not qualify for designation.

23. Bell Cornwell (on behalf of Mary Hurst) acknowledges that he Recreation Ground has community use and sets out in detail why it considers the space does not qualify for designation.

24. ECE Planning and Don Burstow (on behalf of Daniel and Sophie Burstow and Diana Miles) sets out in detail why it considers that Land adjacent to Pucks Croft Cottage does not qualify for designation. It is noted that some of these spaces are also listed as a community facility.

25. O’Neill Homer raised similar concerns in its File Note to the Steering Group dated 19 July 2019. It is recommended that the Steering Group undertake a further review of the proposed Local Green Spaces in relation to the LGS criteria to satisfy itself that

Rusper Neighbourhood Plan: Regulation 14 Summary Report 4 each space is a genuine and robust candidate for designation, and also for those spaces which are also co-designated as Community Facilities.

26. Lewis & Co Planning does not object to Ghyll Manor Field being designated as a Local Green Space in principle, however, they indicate some concern that such a designation would stymie the expansion of the hotel. Additionally, it requests the inclusion of a specific policy to support the long-term viability of the hotel and restaurant and seeks engagement with the Steering Group. O’Neill Homer previously recommended the Steering Group meet with owners of the community assets in the area to understand their future plans. It is recommended that the Steering Group meet with the owners to agree common ground and advise OH of the outcome.

RUS8 – Landscape Character and Local Gaps

27. Homes England consider that the policy should refer to one gap and the second part of the policy should be deleted.

28. Gladman requests that the policy be deleted as it considers designating local gaps as an arbitrary tool to prevent sustainable development. The designation of local gaps continues to be a successful planning tool and the supporting text of the policy justifies its inclusion. It is therefore considered that no specific amendments are required to this policy.

RUS9 – Community Facilities

29. BelI Cornwell (on behalf of Mary Hurst) reveals proposals for five new dwellings on part of the site and considers that it is consistent with Policy RUS9. The proposal does not include an extension or partial redevelopment of the facilities to improve viability in accordance with the policy, but while it may enable some improvements to the football pitch/facilities the existing football pitch is already of insufficient size to meet the required pitch size standards. The supporting text should make clear these limitations and that the site has insufficient capacity to accommodate any such ‘enabling’ development.

RUS10 – Rusper Primary School

30. West Sussex County Council refers to the supporting text of the policy in relation to the provision of schools for the North Horsham Strategic Development. It clarifies that whilst additional education provision might have been requested, that it would only be bought on stream when the capacity of the existing schools has been exceeded. The text can be updated to reflect this position. Nevertheless, given the role of the school in the community, the policy seeks to accommodate the reasonable needs of the school in competing on equal terms with alternative provision at North Horsham. It is therefore recommended that the policy remains unchanged but that the supporting text of the policy reflects West Sussex County Council’s position for accuracy.

Rusper Neighbourhood Plan: Regulation 14 Summary Report 5

RUS13 – Developer Contributions

31. Homes England consider the policy is ambiguous, does not satisfy the requirements of the CIL Regulations, and that it should be made clear that the policy only relates to developments in Rusper Village and its immediate environs. The very nature of the mitigation measures identified by the Parish Council evidences that the need applies to the whole of the Parish and is not constrained to Rusper Village.

Planning Practice Guidance Paragraph: 003 Reference ID: 41-003-20190509 states:

“…To help deliver their vision communities that take a proactive approach by drawing up a neighbourhood plan or Order and secure the consent of local people in a referendum, will benefit from 25% of the revenues from the Community Infrastructure Levy arising from the development that takes place in their area, where their authority collects contributions using this method…”

In this context ‘in their area’ means the designated neighbourhood area. The supporting text to RUR13 could usefully include this reference.

32. Barton Willmore seeks clarification on the scope of the proposed entry gates. The Steering Group are advised to include additional information on the entry gates proposed

Summary

33. The majority of the statutory consultee and landowner representations that have been received support the intention of the Plan. It is considered that only minor modifications will be necessary to improve the clarity and application of the policies of the plan. Once the proposed modifications from this report are made, and improvements to supporting evidence made, it is recommended that Neighbourhood Plan can proceed to submission without further consultation.

34. The Steering group should also complete their schedule of comments from the community and append this report and the response to the community comments to the Consultation Statement.

Rusper Neighbourhood Plan: Regulation 14 Summary Report 6