Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee Agenda Item No: 5 Joint Downland Area Committee

10th February 2009 – At a Special Meeting of the Committee held at 7.00 p.m. at Eastergate Village Hall, Eastergate

Present: West County Council (WSCC): Councillor Derek Whittington

Arun District Council (ADC): Councillor Norman Dingemans (Chairman), Councillor Melissa Briggs, Councillor Paul Bicknell. Councillor Mike Barnett and Councillor Stephen Haymes

Town/Parish Council representatives: Councillor Mick Kennedy ( Parish Council), Councillor N Nunn ( Parish Council), Councillor Mike Young (Barnham Parish Council), Councillor Philip White ( Village Committee), Councillor Sheila Chapman (Clapham Parish Council), Councillor Barbara Edge (Clymping Parish Council), Councillor Mick Hutton (Eastergate Parish Council), Councillor Len Prior (Findon Parish Council) (Vice-Chairman), Councillor Malcolm Jacob ( Parish Council), Councillor Chris Wood (Poling Parish Meeting), and Councillor Peter Bryan ( Parish Council)

In attendance: County Council (WSCC): Clare Gardiner (Democratic Services) and Anne Panella (Democratic Services) Council (ADC): Ian Sumnall (Chief Executive), Juan Baiza and Karen Dower

Chairman’s Welcome

151. The Chairman welcomed the Committee and members of the public to the meeting. It is proposed that a presentation for each item will be made by Ian Sumnall, Chief Executive of Arun District Council, following which questions will be taken on that subject before moving to the next subject. A maximum of 40 minutes will be allowed for each of the three agenda items

152. It was stressed that this is the beginning of the consultation process and not the time to be making long statements but rather seeking clarification of points in the documents and which arise from the presentations

153. The consultation period will commence tomorrow (12th February) until 2nd April.

Apologies for Absence

154. Apologies had been received from:

David Britton West Sussex County Council Christina Freeman West Sussex County Council Deborah Urquhart West Sussex County Council Richard Taft Parish Council Tony Mercer Poling Parish Council Jeremy Fox Patching Parish Council Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee Declarations of Interest

155. In accordance with the Code of Conduct Councillor Paul Bicknell and Councillor Melissa Briggs declared a personal interest on Agenda Item No. 6 as members of the Local Development Framework (LDF) Committee.

Urgent Matters

156. None were raised

Arun Local Development Framework (LDF) Core Strategy

157. The LDF for Arun is the Spatial Plan for the area up to 2026 and this presentation will enable responses to be made to the questions asked in the formal consultation process.

158. Each District Council has, by law, to produce a Core Strategy, which identifies key sites for development but also areas upon which no development should be recommended. Three options have been identified for future development.

159. The District Council has prepared the plan, which will be approved by Councillors in September 2009. Then it will be submitted to the Planning Inspectorate, followed by a period of Public Consultation; the Inspectorate will hear objections then prepare his/her overview, which is legally binding.

160. The Inspectorate will test the proposals against a number of elements:

- appropriateness - justified by evidence - deliverable and flexible - does not contravene any statutory or national planning barriers.

161. There are currently 69,000 houses in Arun with 147,000 residents. An additional 11,500 houses are required to be built up to 2016. The three options are to include a mix of urban and rural houses and sustainable urban extensions to existing developments.

162. Affordable Housing requirements and those on waiting list currently accounts for a total of 3,817 households; Council Tax Bands A and B totalling approximately 200 households per annum to be accommodated.

163. The Strategy has identified brownfield sites for future development plus and . The three options for proposed future development are:

Option 1 Littlehampton 2,000 households Bognor Regis 2,500 Inland Villages 1,400

Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee Option 2 Ford ECP Town 5,000 households Rest of District 900

Option 3 Barnham, Eastergate, Westergate 2,500 Bognor Regis 1,500 North L’hampton 1,500 Rest of District 400

164. The consultation period starts on 12th February and ends on 2nd April. Forms are available to all residents to send their comments in addition to the mobile roadshows being provided in Barnham, Eastergate and Westergate.

Questions

Morningthorpe: With regard to the affordable housing, how many more than the 200 identified in categories A and B do you expect will require housing?

We know of these 200 households, which is the same number as the previous year. Work is being conducted within Worthing, and Adur looking at that very question of identifying need, and the report is due early March 2009, but have no reason to believe the number will change under the current circumstances.

Village in Action Group: a number of sites were put forward in 2005 for development; have these plans been withdrawn or do they also form part of these proposals?

The Council has not simply come up with options because there is a development nearby. In many cases proposed sites are the result of proactive landowners putting forward their land for consideration. With regard to Option 3, this is due to landowners promoting a particular scheme; there is no one person but rather a collection of landowners who are saying this is a desirable scheme. Other landowners who have been active in the past in promoting their land are not action at present.

CAB Housing Adviser: Where are people going to work and how are they going to get there. The District is not an economic hotspot and to encourage people to live in the area jobs have to be available. Currently they are not and the majority of workers commute out of the district, resulting in gridlocked roads. Additional housing will only exacerbate this problem. Where are the plans for improvements to the transport infrastructure?

Arun is typified by an elderly population who retire to the area, with those who do commute travelling to , Chichester, , Worthing and . Regeneration is very important for the future prosperity of the area so we also need to allocate land for employment; this does not create jobs but it is hoped it will encourage companies to come into the area. The problem of congested roads needs addressing and its hoped that road improvement schemes will be brought forward; it will be a test of what we end up with – will it work and will jobs come to Arun.

Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee

i. There is little or no public transport into Littlehampton and Bognor ii. House prices are going down; is it still viable to build more new homes iii. This consultation appears to be no more than ticking a box for or against a particular option without the ability to expand or provide comments iv. Options 1 and 3 sees the majority of development concentrated in Barnham and Eastergate: cannot this building be spread over more of the villages? A roadshow event is needed in these two villages v. Concerned with this process as its difficult to find information on the Council website; where’s the Core Strategy.

If you have other options, which may be an improvement to the Eastergate/ Barnham option, then let us know; this is not intended to be a ‘tick box’ exercise.

It is, however, too late to challenge the South East Regional Strategy whereby the Regional Assembly allocated a minimum of over 9.000 new homes to be built in the area. The Planning Inspectorate has indicated that a further 2,000 homes will be required, but more information will be provided on the reasons why the proposed areas had been chosen.

Arun District Council went to a lot of trouble to object to the Eco Town project yet now the Council is proposing this be part of one of the three options!

The Council did not object to the actual plans for Ford but rather the process that sought to by-pass much of the statutory planning process. There was also little information on how the ‘green’ standards would be achieved.

Eastergate Parish Council: the villages of Eastergate, Westergate and Barnham don’t want 2,500 homes on Greenfield sites. No consideration has been given to the pressure that will be placed on amenities such as doctors, schools. There is enormous resentment that local communities are being destroyed by these proposals and direct action may be taken to prevent this.

County Councillor: can you explain how the mobile roadshow is going to work. There is no mention in the schedule of a roadshow being provided on a Saturday, bearing in mind the acknowledgement that many people commute out of the area for work and will be unable to attend anything on weekdays.

Parish and Town Councils will have the list of dates of the roadshows by the end of this week, leaflets will be distributed, dates will be on the website and a phone number will be publicised.

This is a Local Destruction Plan; if you need housing development you need the infrastructure to support it to be in place first, jobs then come, then housing. Building houses first it will create yet more commuter villages, with the gridlocked roads only getting worse.

I agree that there are serious problems with the lack of infrastructure but some of these deficits will be addressed. The main roads are inadequate to deal with current traffic volumes; we do lots of lobbying to Ministers and the County Council but quite often proposals for improvements are Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee put back not brought forward. Any development must bring with it the finance to address the infrastructure issues. The sewers in Barnham are inadequate but are better in Bognor as were subject to upgrading 10 years ago.

Clymping Parish Council: The concentration of housing in Barnham is horrendous, housing allocation should be spread across the district rather than been concentrated in a small number of sites with a resulting huge impact on Greenfield, roads and local amenities.

Who came up with the suggestion that Angmering should receive a further 1,500 homes south of the village on top of the 800 already been allocated? The schools are all to the north so this proposal will result in total gridlock on the roads. Has no-one really looked at the proposals and the impact on the villages and residents?

The 800 new homes did bring with it the by-pass, albeit taking traffic from one gridlocked road to another. It must be reiterated that the number of proposed new homes is a minimum, so if the Ford development is added there could be up to 10,000 homes.

165. The Committee noted the report and the consultation period would begin on 12th February for a period of seven weeks.

Eco Town Proposals for Ford

166. The Government is consulting for the second time on the future of eco- towns, following the first consultation in Summer 2008. Comments from the first consultation were considered in the new plans, the consultation of which is completed at the end of March 2009.

167. The District Council have carried out analysis of the best way of building 5,000 new homes. Will Ford provide the necessary jobs, thus reducing commuting by the proposed 50%, will finance be available for the infrastructure to be put in place and will the ‘green’ targets be achievable

Questions

If the Government did choose to go ahead with Ford would a new local authority be created to administer and manage the area or will it be incorporated into Arun District Council?

It could be either. This is being looked at as part of the overall plans and we need to look at how a resident based community is governed.

Will the governing arrangement be similar to those communities created by the New Towns Commission in the ‘50s, ‘60s and ‘70s?

Not entirely as Ford will have a resident based committee to manage many elements of the town using profits generated by the project.

Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee If Option 1 or 3 is chosen does that mean that Ford will not then go ahead?

Not sure. The situation is about houses and if we have another 5,000 we need to go through the process as quickly as possible to be sure of not getting a greater number of dwellings, that’s why its so important for all to respond to the consultation otherwise we may get another development that attempts to circumvent the statutory planning process and be imposed on the community.

Several years ago, any new homes were dependent on the By-Pass being completed. How many homes need to be built at Ford to pay for a by-pass?

What is meant by the Arundel by-pass? There is not one scheme that is being considered and because of the cost (up to £200 million) this proposal is being reconsidered. The cost of any by-pass cannot be met from the housing developers alone but must include finance from both the public and private sectors. Money will not be available in the next few years and it may be that any number of options will have to be considered, a temporary Crossbush interchange/junction being one of them.

Gypsy, Traveller and Travelling Show-People Study

168. A study has been conducted to identify the additional 14-18 permanent pitches required. A short list has been drawn up and residents will now have the opportunity to comment on these during the consultation period, 12th February to 2nd April, the results being used to develop a Council policy and will form part of the Core Strategy. By providing these pitches we will be able to react to unauthorised encampments with greater powers.

169. Gypsies and travellers are defined as

‘persons of nomadic habit of life … including … persons who have ceased to travel temporarily or permanently’

170. Site locations should generally be on the outskirts of built-up areas or semi- rural settings, access to local facilities, services and road network, respect the scale of the nearest settled community and have regard to noise and disturbance from vehicles and on-site activities and not to be located in areas at high risk of flooding, on contaminated land or near electricity pylons.

171. The shortlist of sites are: Nova Paddocks, Eastergate Lane, Eastergate Coventry Plantation, Findon Patching Wood Yard, France Lane, Patching Brook Lane, Wyndham Acres, Northfields Lane, Westergate The Paddocks, Northfield Lane, Westergate County Nursery, Yapton Road, Barnham

Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee Questions

Is it correct that this shortlist of sites are the same places were unauthorised encampments were? If so, that would indicate that if travellers remain long enough in a place then the site will be designated as authorised. With regard to Wyndham Acres, this has flooded in 1999 and 2002. The criteria states that respect be given to settled, permanent communities with regard to noise and disturbance. An unauthorised encampment has affected me for six years yet the Council has failed to address this.

I believe we will have different views but the criterion, as stated, has been used to identify the sites. You are right in that the shortlist is currently occupied illegally but we are also consulting on other sites. We have to take into account the achievability of new sites and we will move families onto alternative sites if current occupied sites are deemed unsuitable.

You state that permanent residents/communities will be protected from noise and nuisance but it has been shown that these issues have caused greater problems on permanent sites than temporary ones so, again, your process are failing.

Wyndham Acres is currently a temporary site and if the families were to move it would be best to be done as part of an overall plan.

I don’t detect anything that says who/what will run these sites; will the local authority run them? How will it work?

Difficult to say at this time how the sites will be managed. For example, Arun District Council owns the Canada Road site and if selected as a permanent site the council would have to provide the necessary infrastructure in order to rent to families. The County Council owns the site. For those sites not council owned may require Compulsory Purchase for which grants are available from Central Government in order that all sites have similar amenities and are maintained to the same standards.

I live opposite the site in Patching and if all the current sites are occupied illegally but will become legal, it appears the council is giving a strong message that if you behave in an illegal manner, eventually the local authority will condone your actions and grant you permission to live there.

With regard to the site, Patching Wood Yard, France Lane, Patching, is the Council aware that this land is privately owned and the owner does not wish to sell and his solicitor has informed the council of this, yet you persist in continue to state this land will be a new, permanent site.

Illegal occupation of sites is happening because there are no permanent, legal sites. In these circumstances we can’t evict people from illegal sites as they would have no where to go and then be entitled to compensation as has recently happened.

I wasn’t aware of the issue with regard to the France Lane site.

Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee Clapham Parish Council: all of our houses are subject to Planning Permission if we wish to extend or amend the structure. Will the same planning constraints apply to these traveller sites?

It is proposed that some of the permanent sites will have workshops if a business is to be run from there but the issues of noise, traffic etc will be considered prior to permission being granted. However, commercial planning permission criteria are different for traveller sites than for other permanent premises as they fall within special categories.

The Patching site fails on the selection criteria; there are insufficient GPs in the area and the site is prone to flooding. The report provided by the consultants contradicts the information that Patching Parish Council provided; the information in the report was changed prior to publication. Also, the report states that the current Findon site has caused problems in the past, yet all local residents know this not to be the case. Can you explain these discrepancies?

We are aware of errors in the report but do not feel it is necessary to withdraw the report because of them.

Can you clarify if the proposed 14/18 new sites will be in addition to the current illegal sites?

The figure of 14/18 new sites will include all provision required for the whole of Arun. However, if planning permission is requested for more sites the Planning Inspectorate may reassess.

It is disappointing to note the numerous errors in the report; the Council has been informed of these errors from a number of individuals and Parish Councils yet no amendments have been made to the report. For example, there is no food shop at Clapham, Patching Wood Yard (already mentioned) is in private ownership and the owner does not want to sell, and the ownership of Nova Paddocks is incorrect. There are many misleading statements in this report and for the sake of clarity it should be withdrawn and amended.

We are aware of errors in the report and I will make a note of them; be assured these comments will be taken into account.

If a maximum of 18 pitches is required in the Arun area by 2016 can any illegally created sites be removed?

Yes

Nova Paddocks is the top site on the shortlist. Why did the consultants, Baker Associates, contact neither Eastergate nor Barnham Parish Councils?

I believe that Paragraph 2.16 in the report explains the process that the consultants followed. The District Council was asked to provide the names of Parish Councils that had planning permission experience of travellers, not those who just had experience of travellers camped legally or illegally in their parishes.

Unconfirmed Minutes – subject to approval / amendment at the next meeting of the Committee Councillor Briggs: you have acknowledged the numerous errors in the report and in the circumstances the Council should correct the report and then re-publish.

With regard to Nova Paddocks planning permission was robustly rejected because it was deemed important to maintain a strategic gap between Eastergate and Fontwell. If Nova Paddocks is now on the shortlist is this gap no longer required? If that is the case, it’s a dangerous signal to the future of planning regulations.

The strategic gap will not be impinged by granted permission to a traveller site. It a landowner sells land to a person of a distinct and different cultural background, to which different planning criteria would apply, it does make it difficult to have blanket planning permission regulations over the entire district.

What facilities have to be provided on each site and who will pay for the installation of these facilities?

The Council only has to provide gas, water, electricity and roads for rented sites. If the sites are owner-occupied then that is a matter for the private sector to provide.

172. Members noted the report and the dates of the consultation period.

Date of Future Meetings

 Monday 30th March 2009  Monday 6th July 2009  Monday 5th October 2009  Monday 18th January 2010

All meetings will commence at 7.00 pm.

173. The meeting closed at 9.30 pm

Chairman