Response to Horsham District Council

Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Ref No. Transport SPT17(09/10) Response to Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Review - 'Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond' consultation Key Decision: No

Part I Report by the Director of Operations – Electoral Infrastructure and the Divisional Manager of Local Divisions: All Development Horsham divisions

Executive Summary

The adopted Horsham District Council Core Strategy sets out a framework for planning the future of the District, including how the District Council intends to meet the Governments requirements for development for the period to 2018. The District Council now needs to review the Core Strategy and look even further ahead in light of the South East Plan being approved earlier in the year.

The first stage of the review process is the consultation document ‘Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond’, which sets out some of the key issues in planning the future of the District and options for how they can be addressed and how the District Council’s development requirements can be met. A number of potential strategic development sites are identified for consideration.

The District Council does not have a preferred strategy at this stage, and the final decision as to where to accommodate the necessary growth could involve a combination of the suggested site options.

After consideration of the responses to this consultation the District Council will produce a draft Core Strategy which will identify which option for growth they think best meets the needs of the District to 2026, together with a strategy for delivering it. This draft Core Strategy Review will contain the necessary policies to deliver the chosen option, and will explain in broad detail the infrastructure required to support it, together with the costs, identification of the delivery partners and how this growth will be phased. This next draft will be known as the Preferred Strategy document, and will be subject to a further six week period of public consultation in Spring 2010. It is anticipated that the Core Strategy Review will be adopted in late 2011, thereby making any resulting development unlikely to occur until 2013 at the earliest.

There are a number of concerns that need to be addressed within the emerging Core Strategy Review. There would be highway capacity and safety concerns if more than one of the suggested Site Options in the Horsham and Crawley corridor were to be permitted i.e. West of Ifield, Faygate, North Horsham and Chesworth Farm; and sustainability issues about the Adversane/North Heath option because of its remoteness from other settlements and about the increase in traffic generated by a development of this scale on the A29 road. Other 1 matters concern a possible strategic ecological objection regarding Strategic Site Option 1; that Strategic Site Option 3 may prejudice the continued operation of an existing waste landfill site and any future waste uses; that Strategic Site Option 8 may raise an archaeological objection (for part of the site) plus require major education investment. Additionally, at this early stage, there is a strategic landscape objection due to development on green field sites for all of the Strategic Site Options. However, if it is accepted that the use of greenfield land is necessary, then some sections of these Strategic Site Options could be developed without major impact in the landscape subject to the provision of associated mitigation measures. Finally, there are issues relating to how historic environment policy matters plus those dealing with affordable housing in villages have been handled in the current Core Strategy. There may be scope to address these in the review.

Generally, the County Council is keen that any proposed development makes the best use of existing and planned infrastructure, meets the economic and social needs of local communities, is located outside areas of flood or other risks, and provides for travel by sustainable means. Continued partnership between West Sussex County Council service providers and Horsham District will be essential to ensure that services can be delivered alongside housing growth.

Specific comments concerning the matters mentioned above, plus other technical points concerning the consultation and background documents are set out in Appendix A to this report.

This report seeks to highlight matters of concern and interest to the County Council regarding this consultation. Ultimately, it will be for Horsham District Council, and its partners, to determine which of the various options best meets their future needs.

Recommendation

That the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport approves this report and the accompanying comments set out in Appendix A as the County Council’s response to the consultation.

1. Background

1.1 The Government approved the South East Plan (Regional Spatial Strategy) in May this year, which sets out new development requirements from 2006 to 2026. As a result, Horsham District Council now needs to review its currently adopted Core Strategy, which sets out a framework for planning the future of the District, including how it intends to meet the Government’s requirements for development.

1.2 The first stage in the process of preparing the Core Strategy Review has now begun. The document entitled ‘Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond’ was published for consultation on 4 September 2009. The document sets out some of the key issues in planning the future of the District and some options for how the development requirements can be met. Although there are many issues that need to be considered to plan for the long term future of the District, the District Council recognises that there will inevitably

2 be a focus on development options and new housing development in particular.

1.3 The vision and key issues have been prepared taking account of national, regional (the adopted South East Plan), existing adopted Local Development Framework (LDF) policies / strategies and community engagement. The main issue for Horsham District is the need to provide 13,000 new homes from 2006 until 2026 as required by the South East Plan.

1.4 The District Council has identified four possible ways, called Strategic Spatial Options, in which the required development could be brought forward: • Spread Development Throughout the District – creating a relatively balanced distribution of housing and economic growth, within environmental limits, whilst taking account of the sub-regional requirements within the District.

• Focus Development on the Main/Most Sustainable Existing Settlements – concentrating housing and economic development in locations that are most accessible, as a form of ‘urban extension’.

• Concentrate Development in Each Sub-Region within a New Settlement – exploring the potential for a new market town in the Gatwick Sub-Region jointly with neighbouring Authorities and for a new village in the Rest of the District.

• A Hybrid Option – a combination of the any or all of the above options, dependent on the practical delivery requirements in both the shorter and longer terms, as well as the environmental and infrastructure planning considerations. 1.5 Further to the four general options, the District Council has identified the following nine potential Strategic Site Options across the District to meet the South East Plan requirements:

The Gatwick Sub-Region part of the District: There are 6 strategic locations where development could be considered as options for the future planning of this part of the District (they are not indicated in any order of preference): 1. West of Ifield

2. Faygate

3. North Horsham – Holbrook Park

4. North Horsham – Chennells Brook

5. South Horsham – Chesworth Farm

6. West of Southwater

Rest of the District: There are 3 main options for development to meet the housing requirements for the rest of the District outside the Gatwick Sub-Region (they are not indicated in any order of preference):

7. East of Billingshurst

8. Adversane/North Heath

3 9. Pulborough Expansion

1.6 The consultation document sets out a series of opportunities and constraints for each of these Strategic Site Options. Additionally, the site options are discussed in more detail in two accompanying background documents – ‘Potential Strategic Site Option Appraisals, September 2009’ and ‘Key Delivery Stakeholder Position Statements, September 2009’.

1.7 Within each of the component parts of the District there are a number of combinations of options which could be pursued in order to meet the identified housing requirements; some combinations of options would be likely to concentrate development too much into particular locations and hence would put undue pressure on the infrastructure and the delivery of the potential development. Other options when combined may deliver more development than is actually required at the present time, albeit that the housing requirements are not intended to be maximum figures or a constraint on appropriate development.

1.8 This consultation ends on the 16th October 2009. After consideration of the responses to this consultation the District Council will produce a draft Core Strategy which will identify which option for growth they think best meets the needs of the District to 2026, together with a strategy for delivery. This draft Core Strategy will also contain the necessary policies to deliver the chosen, or preferred, option, and will explain in broad detail the infrastructure required to support it, together with the costs, identification of the delivery partners and how this growth will be phased. This next draft will be known as the Preferred Strategy document, and will be subject to a further six week period of public consultation in Spring 2010. Currently, it is anticipated that the Core Strategy Review will be adopted in late 2011/early 2012, thereby making any development unlikely to occur until 2013 at the earliest.

2. Proposed Response

2.1 The ‘Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond’ document, together with the supporting documents, have been considered against the adopted strategy and policies of the South East Plan, and various West Sussex County Council plans including the emerging Minerals and Waste Development Framework, the Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2004, the Minerals Local Plan 2003, the West Sussex Transport Plan 2006-2016 and the policy intentions of the West Sussex Structure Plan 2001-16. In general, it is considered that at this early stage, this consultation broadly seeks to address the issues set out in the Regional and County Council documents and plans. However, there are a number of concerns and issues that should be addressed as the Core Strategy Review progresses. These are as follows.

2.2 Regarding meeting the necessary housing provision, it is noted that the total possible dwelling provision arising from the Strategic Site Options as set out in Chapter 3 of the consultation document is between 18,780 and 19,780 dwellings. To date, around 920 homes have already been approved or allocated since 2006, and existing commitments could accommodate 5,968 dwellings. Additionally, our understanding is that the non-strategic sites (other than Strategic Site Options 1 to 8) in the Strategic Housing Land

4 Availability Assessment (SHLAA) could accommodate a total of 2,646 dwellings (all figures are net). Taken together, these four possible components of housing supply are capable of producing a total of between 28,325 to 29,325 dwellings. Clearly, this comfortably exceeds the 13,000 dwellings required by the South East Plan, and it follows therefore that the sites put forward in this consultation exercise will need to be cut back significantly to produce a realistic set of development options for future consideration.

2.3 The County Council, as highway authority, would have general concerns regarding the potential impact on highways capacity and safety if one or more of the potential Strategic Site Options were allocated in relatively close proximity to the existing Strategic Locations at West of Bewbush and West of Horsham. This would particularly be the case for those potential Site Options in the Horsham and Crawley corridor i.e. West of Ifield, Faygate, North Horsham and Chesworth Farm.

2.4 Again in highways and transport terms, the Strategic Site Option 8 (Adversane/North Heath), is remote from the nearest settlements and currently lacks any shops, community facilities or employment centres. These types of facilities would have to be created to reduce the amount of out-commuting to the larger towns of Horsham, Crawley etc. In any event, at this stage, there are serious concerns about the increase in traffic generated by a development of this scale on the A29, particularly as regards Pulborough to the south with its food stores and obvious highway constraints; and all non-strategic routes leading east to the A24.

2.5 Additionally, the County Council may have objections to the following:

• Strategic Site Option 1 (West of Ifield): In ecological terms because the boundary as indicated would appear to incorporate: a Site of Special Scientific Interest; two Sites of Nature Conservation Importance; and an Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland;

• Strategic Site Option 3 (Holbrook Park): This site appears to lie in close proximity to three sites which were identified as a potential allocation in the Strategic Waste Site Allocations Development Plan Document (2007) – Brookhurst Wood Extension, Warnham Brickworks and Langhurstwood Quarry. The Warnham Brickworks site is the subject of a current planning application to deliver the proposed Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) plant as part of the County Council’s Materials Resource Management Contract (MRMC). The County Council would object to development here that might prejudice the continued operation of the existing landfill site and any future waste uses on the site;

• Strategic Site Option 8 (Adversane/North Heath): In archaeological/historic landscape terms, due to the existence of ancient and distinctive fieldscapes in the eastern part of the site. Additionally, in terms of education provision, a development of this scale (some 4000 dwellings) would present a major infrastructure problem necessitating the possible provision of two 2 Form Entry primary schools and the need for new secondary school provision. Plus

5 sustainability issues about this option because of its remoteness from other settlements and about the increase in traffic generated by a development of this scale on the A29; and

• At this early stage, in strategic landscape objection terms due to development on green field sites for all of the suggested Strategic Site Options. However, if it is accepted that the use of greenfield land is necessary, then some sections of these Strategic Site Options could be developed without major impact in the landscape subject to the provision of associated mitigation measures.

2.6 Regarding issues for other core policies, the County Council believes that historic environment issues are not dealt with to the same extent as biodiversity/nature conservation issues. It also has reservations about the retention of the existing policy that development in the smaller villages should continue to be on the basis of 100% affordable housing. This policy could stifle all residential development in small settlements, thus undermining any possibility of supporting and retaining rural facilities and services.

2.7 Other issues that the County Council suggests should be considered in the emerging Core Strategy Review are: • The need to create and maintain an attractive and healthy environment that supports sustainable lifestyles and addresses the issues of climate change. • The need to provide the amount, mix and tenure of housing in the right place to meet the needs of the community into the future. • The need to support a healthy and vibrant economy by protecting and improving existing employment areas and providing new employment areas. • The need to support and enhance rural communities; and in particular to provide affordable housing for local people.

2.8 Generally, the County Council is keen that development makes best use of existing and planned infrastructure, meets the economic and social needs of local communities, is located outside areas of flood or other risks and provides for travel by sustainable means. Ultimately, it will be for Horsham District Council, and its partners, to determine which of the various options best meets their needs for the future.

2.9 Finally, the needs of the County Council as a service provider have also been considered. Not withstanding the lack of detail concerning the suggested site options, an attempt has been made to provide helpful comments on the likely requirements of services such as education, libraries, fire & rescue, waste management services, supported housing provision and transport. The District Council will need to engage fully with the County Council as it progresses the Core Strategy Review to ensure that key infrastructure needs are properly identified and planned for.

2.10 More detailed comments concerning the issues raised in the proceeding paragraphs, together with other comments of a technical nature on the consultation document (including, where appropriate, the background 6 documents) is presented in Appendix A to this report. It is suggested that these comments, together with this report, be sent to Horsham District Council as the County Council's response to the consultation.

3. Consultation

Consultations have taken place with local Members in, and adjoining, the Horsham District electoral divisions; the Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning and Transport, his Deputy and Policy Advisers and with officers in the Infrastructure Division. Additionally, comments were sought from the following service units: West Sussex Fire and Rescue Service, Property Services, Wastes Management Services, Children and Young People’s Services and Adults’ Services. Any comments received are reported in Appendix A to this report.

4. Resources Implications and Value for Money

There are no resource implications in making this response. Resource issues will arise as development progresses and will be addressed in detail then.

5. Risk Management Implications

The ‘Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond’ consultation document is an early stage in preparing the review of the Horsham District Local Development Framework Core Strategy which sets out a vision and spatial strategy for the district, including identifying broad locations for development and setting out principles against which land will be allocated in the future. It is therefore important that the County Council is involved as a key stakeholder, in the preparation of the Core Strategy document to ensure that policies established in County Council related documents are implemented and that the County Council's needs, as a service provider, are met.

6. Crime and Disorder Act Implications

There are no identifiable Crime and Disorder Act implications.

7. Human Rights Act Implications

This Council, together with the District Councils, has a positive obligation to ensure that respect for human rights is at the core of day to day work and must consider Article 6 (Determination of Civil Rights), 8 (A Right to Family Life, etc.) and Article 1 of the First Protocol (Right to Property). The preparation of a local development document such as the Core Strategy and the involvement of the community and stakeholders at each stage will potentially contribute to improving the quality of life in the district and will therefore have a positive impact on human rights.

8. Customer Focus Appraisal

Customer Focus Appraisal (CFA) is not required for this decision. This is because the CFA process should be applied to services/policies that the County Council is developing/reviewing or implementing. As the County

7 Council is not the owner of the consultation document, there would be no requirement for a CFA to be carried out.

Tony Toynton Duncan Barratt Director of Operations – Service Manager – Infrastructure Local Development

Appendices

Appendix A - Proposed West Sussex County Council response to the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy Review - 'Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond' consultation.

Appendix B – West Sussex County Council Infrastructure Requirements (Highways and Transport). Officer comments which were originally supplied to Horsham District Council in May & August 2009.

Background Papers

Horsham District Council Local Development Framework: Core Strategy Review - 'Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond' consultation.

West Sussex Minerals Local Plan 2003.

West Sussex Waste Local Plan Revised Deposit Draft 2001–2016 (July 2004).

The emerging West Sussex Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF).

West Sussex Transport Plan 2006-2016.

Contact: Steve Brown, Ext. 77042

8 APPENDIX A

Proposed West Sussex County Council response to the Horsham District Council Local Development Framework – Core Strategy Review - 'Leading Change in Partnership to 2026 and Beyond' consultation.

The following detailed comments are set out in the same order as are the chapters and sections in the consultation document.

Chapter 1: Comment Introduction and Background General comments No comments. The adopted Core No comments. Strategy (2007) The South East Plan No comments. The purpose of this No comments. consultation

Chapter 2: A Vision Comment for Horsham District to 2026 and beyond 'Visioning Horsham' No comments. consultation 'All Our Futures' No comments. consultation Horsham District No comments. Sustainable Community Strategy The 4 Goals to achieve No comments. the desired community

Chapter 3: Planning Comment for Future Change in Horsham District The approach agreed so No comments. far The options for future No comments. growth and change Strategic Spatial Options Comments which are applicable to ALL Strategic Spatial Options

General comments

The County Council is keen that development makes best use of existing and planned infrastructure, meets the needs of local communities, and provides for travel by sustainable means. This would suggest locating development where it can best link with existing facilities, services and infrastructure.

New development should not ideally compromise the

9 individual character of settlements and quality of built and historic environment and the need to integrate and enhance historic built environment in urban regeneration initiatives.

In relation to Air Quality, more assessment is needed to see if additional traffic movements will cause Air Quality Management Areas (AQMA) to be declared. Also, large new development could create a problem for new residents. Odour is a statutory nuisance (but of course a problem to note) rather than an air quality matter as it is not covered by air quality legislation.

In highways and transport terms, urban extensions have the potential to be the most sustainably located new settlements as they minimise travel distances to established centres for employment, retail and leisure destinations and also relate reasonably closely to existing public transport corridors. Relatively high mode shares for walking and cycling could be obtained with an appropriate package of “hard” and “soft” measures.

The ‘Manual for Streets’ approach to the design of new development, including many of the principles exemplified in Home Zones, should be encouraged. Closely related to road design should be matters such as Sustainable Drainage Systems (SUDS) and Green Infrastructure planning in that they need to be part of the early planning process and would relay a clear message about the type of development which is desired.

Good construction practice would take into account the use of SUDS and the need for best practice during construction so as not to cause pollution or more impact than is necessary e.g. silt running into rivers. Presumably any houses constructed would be subject to planning conditions to meet the highest standards of environmental construction and compliance with the Code for Sustainable Homes. This would provide good adaptation for the future against a changing climate and assist with mitigation.

Provision of Allotments

The demand for allotments is growing and the provision of allotments for new developments is often overlooked with new residents merely joining the waiting list for existing sites. The provision of new allotments could form part of the section 106 agreements with developers, or could be funded from the CIL system when implemented. The use of allotments for growing food is of benefit to health and sustainable lifestyles.

Highway & Transport issues

At this early stage detailed modelling outputs; detailed junction analysis; detailed strategies for non-car modes; safety and design audits are not available. However, it should be noted that all development options will need to satisfy the following requirements.

10 A point of access that: • Is safe – supported by accident data. • Meets current visibility requirements. • Manages any conflicts – between various road users. • Does not create significant delays on a congested network supported by capacity analysis.

With regard to the sustainability and accessibility of the site: • It should conform to the requirements of Planning Guidance – PPS3 and PPG13. • Reduce the need to travel, especially by car; • Be well linked to existing public transport, pedestrian and cycle networks. • Be accessible to jobs, shops, schools and leisure facilities by modes other than the car. • Provide accessibility improvements – traffic management, safety, public transport, pedestrian or cycle improvements as appropriate.

Additionally, the following issues should be addressed by/or included in any proposed transport package to support development:

• New junctions should be safe, operate within capacity and cater for non car modes. • Existing junctions must be improved as necessary to cater for traffic generated by the development and improve the accessibility of the development by improving facilities for non car modes. • All junctions must provide sufficient capacity, be safe and provide for non car modes. • Impacts on the wider network should be assessed and mitigation measures proposed as appropriate. • Internal transport distribution layouts should be designed in accordance with national (in particular Manual for Streets) and West Sussex design guidance to create low speed environments. • Vehicle swept paths for emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles and buses should be provided where necessary. • All parts of the development must be accessible by a range of transport modes – including public transport, cycle, foot and car to provide better integrated development. • The countryside must be accessible by a range of transport modes - including public transport, cycle, foot and car. • Priority should be provided for access by public transport, cycle and foot through any existing residential network. • If any part of the Strategic Road Network (SRN) is to be downgraded (or closed) then it must be replaced by a route (or routes) that meet the criteria required to perform the function of the SRN. • The reclassification of existing roads should be considered where new links are provided to provide access and or relieve congestion.

11 • Traffic management measures should be used to direct and promote Heavy Goods traffic on appropriate parts of the highway network. • Rat running must be minimised on existing local roads and prevented within the proposed development. • Emergency access provision should be provided if development is served by a single point of access, other than where the West Sussex Fire & Rescue Service confirms that this is not required (the amount of development served off a single point of access should be minimised). • Longer term transport solutions should not be compromised should further development in the area proceed should these not be provided together with the development. • Parking provision for the development should fall within the WSCC maximum parking standards (NB: These standards are currently being reviewed). The development proposal should include a parking management strategy that links to the Travel Plan demonstrating that the level of provision is suitable to ensure that on-street parking problems do not occur and that the targets held within the Travel Plan can be met. • Cycle infrastructure should be designed into street layouts, provision for cyclists should be made on carriageway where traffic flows and speeds are suitable, any shared surfaces should be designed to minimise conflict and safely link to toucan crossing points and on carriageway facilities. All cycle facilities should conform to national design standards. • The need for traffic management measures along existing roads and through the proposed development sites should be considered and addressed if appropriate. Information on the type of traffic management that would be required to discourage through traffic and achieve a reasonable level of delay should be provided. The effectiveness of a proposal to discourage through traffic movements must be calculated from full assignment and simulation modelling of the alternative routes. The need for public consultation at an early stage to determine the level of local support will be required to demonstrate that any measures identified are deliverable. • A comprehensive bus strategy including the provision of Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) technology should be produced to support development proposals. To demonstrate how buses may penetrate the development to ensure that the entire residential development is within a short walk of a bus stop. Evidence is required to demonstrate that proposed routes will provide access to a full range of facilities and services including education and leisure. Internal roads that are identified to accommodate public transport must be subject to Road safety audits. • Any highway proposals must be considered through a Design Audit process and any issues raised must be

12 addressed. • Any highway proposals must be considered through the Safety Audit process, as appropriate, and any issues raised must be addressed. • Proposals are to reflect the requirements as set out in the (currently emerging) WSCC Infrastructure Plans. • Development proposals will require a full Transport Assessment (TA) and an associated Travel Plan with the aim of reducing car dependency and increasing the use of sustainable modes of transport. Issues identified within the TA must be mitigated to the satisfaction of the Highway Authority. This is to ensure that the impact of a development is reduced, managed and mitigated. • A planning application must be submitted with Stage 1 Road Safety Audits in accordance with WSCC Road Safety Audit Policy to support the access arrangements and any off site highway improvements. • In addition to the strategic level of transport modelling undertaken to support the allocation of sites within the Core Strategy, an appropriate level of network transport model using appropriate specialist transport modelling software will be required to support detailed development proposals. • Where a network model is used, this may not obviate the need to use individual junction models to look at key junctions in the study area in more detail. Location/Site Options Strategic Housing policy comment

We note that the total possible dwelling provision arising from the Strategic Site Options as set out in Chapter 3 is between 18,780 and 19,780 dwellings. There have been 931 completions 2006-2009, and existing commitments could accommodate 5,968 dwellings. Our understanding is that the non-strategic sites (other than Strategic Site Options 1 to 8) in the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) could accommodate a total of 2,646 dwellings (all figures are net). Taken together, these four possible components of supply are capable of producing a total of between 28,325 to 29,325 dwellings. Clearly, this comfortably exceeds the 13,000 dwellings required by the South East Plan, and it follows that the sites put forward in this consultation exercise will need to be cut back to produce a realistic set of development options in the next stage of the review process.

Specific comments on the suggested Strategic Site Options

Strategic Archaeological comments

Site Option 1 (West of Ifield)

Development is possible in this area subject to assessment and mitigation of impacts on medieval fieldscape, archaeological sites, (visual) impact on nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument and Conservation Area. Within the boundary, to the west, is a block of medieval assart fields

13 (i.e. fields made and enclosed out of former common, waste and woodland in the medieval period), potentially a significant area of surviving historic medieval landscape of heritage value (Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation information). There are several reported archaeological sites, some comprising earthworks that should be preserved. As indicated, the Ifield Conservation Area and Ifield Court medieval moated site Scheduled Ancient Monument would be located not far beyond the boundary. Visual impacts on the Ancient Monument and Conservation Area will need to be minimised. The principal surviving elements of the medieval fieldscape in the west of the Option area should be identified for inclusion and conservation within the Masterplan. Impacts on other known archaeological sites within the Option area should be mitigated either through conservation or recording. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within this Option Site will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach. There are possible opportunities for enhancement of the historic environment and community benefit through integration of targeted biodiversity, landscape and archaeological site management in potential leisure use parts of the Option area, especially woodland.

Site Option 2 – Faygate

Development is possible in this area subject to assessment and mitigation of impacts on archaeological sites. Within the boundary there are several reported archaeological sites, some comprising earthworks that should be preserved. Impacts on known archaeological sites within the Option area should be mitigated either through conservation or recording. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within the Option Area will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach. There are possible opportunities for enhancement of the historic environment and community benefit through integration of targeted biodiversity, landscape and archaeological site management in potential leisure use parts of the Option area, especially woodland.

Site Option 3 (North Horsham Western Area - Holbrook)

Development is possible in this area subject to assessment and mitigation of impacts on archaeological sites and (visual) impact on nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument. Within the boundary are parts of two historic parkscapes, Holbrook Park and the southern part of former parkland to the south of Graylands Copse. The Graylands medieval moated site Scheduled Ancient Monument is located a little to the north of the Option area boundary. Visual impacts on the Ancient Monument will need to be minimised. Any significant surviving elements of the historic parkscapes should be identified for inclusion and conservation within the Masterplan. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within the Option Area will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach.

14 Site Option 4 (North Horsham Eastern Area - Chennells Brook)

Site Option 5 (South Horsham / Chesworth Farm)

Development is possible in this area subject to assessment and mitigation of impacts on archaeological sites, (visual) impact on nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument. There are several reported archaeological sites, some comprising earthworks that should be preserved. As indicated, the Chesworth House medieval moated site Scheduled Ancient Monument would be located close to the boundary. Visual impacts on the Ancient Monument will need to be minimised. Impacts on other known archaeological sites within the Option area should be mitigated either through conservation or recording. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within the Option Area will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach.

Site Option 6 (West of Southwater)

Development is possible in this area subject to assessment and mitigation of impacts on archaeological sites, (visual) impact on Listed Buildings. There are several known archaeological and historical sites, within or adjacent to the Option Area, and a number of Listed Buildings, some comprising earthworks that should be preserved. As indicated,

Visual impacts on the Listed Buildings will need to be minimised. Impacts on other known archaeological sites within the Option area should be mitigated either through conservation or recording. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within the Option Area will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach.

Site Option 7 (East of Billingshurst)

Development is possible in this area subject to assessment and mitigation of impacts on historic fieldscapes, archaeological sites, (visual) impact on nearby Conservation Area. Within the boundary are a number of historic 15 fieldscapes of varying dates and types, formal and informal assarts and enclosures, from the medieval period onwards (Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation information). There are several reported archaeological sites, within and adjacent to the Option Area. The Billingshurst Conservation Area would be located not far beyond the boundary. Visual impacts on the Conservation Area will need to be minimised. Impacts on known archaeological sites within the Option area should be mitigated either through conservation or recording. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within the Option Area will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach. There are possible opportunities for enhancement of the historic environment, and community benefit, by means of retention of boundary elements of the historic fieldscapes, to illustrate the development over time of the historic landscape of the Option Area.

Site Option 8 (Adversane/ North Heath)

Potential strategic archaeological / historic landscape objection relating to ancient and distinctive fieldscapes in the eastern part of this suggested site option. Development may be possible in the western part of the site, subject to assessment and mitigation of impacts on historic fieldscapes and archaeological sites, and visual impact on Listed Buildings. Within the eastern part of the Option Area are the southernmost surviving parts of linear arrangements of fields which belonged to three adjoining “strip manors”. These were narrow and very long (up to 12 km in these cases) strips of land, between one and three fields wide, identified as manorial/ estate holdings of Late Anglo-Saxon origin, thought to have begun as planned allotments of Wealden woodland granted to settlements on the Sussex coastal plain. Features of these strips, which may survive in parts of the Option area, include the sinuous Late Saxon/ medieval form of the manorial boundaries, often topped with old, species-rich hedges; individual field boundaries are also often medieval in origin and some have the locally distinctive “Sussex double hedges”, comprising a central ditch with bank and hedgerow on either side. These ancient, regionally rare and locally distinctive fieldscapes should be considered to have much heritage value (Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation and published information). Within the western part of the Option area are a number of historic fieldscapes of varying dates and types, formal and informal assarts and enclosures, from the medieval period onwards (Sussex Historic Landscape Characterisation information). There are a number of reported archaeological sites, at least one comprising earthworks that should be preserved, and a number of Listed Buildings. The rare and distinctive block of “strip manor” linear fieldscape in the eastern part of the site should be omitted from the development, and surviving ancient boundary hedges along the edges of the fieldscape buffered accordingly. The principal surviving elements of older and more distinctive fieldscapes in the western part of the Option area should be identified for inclusion and conservation within the Masterplan. Impacts on other known archaeological sites within the Option area should be 16 mitigated either through conservation or recording. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within the Option Area, will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach. There are opportunities for enhancement of the historic environment and community benefit through integration of targeted biodiversity, landscape and archaeological site management in potential leisure use parts of the Option area, especially woodland, and in relation to the diverse ancient fieldscapes.

Site Option 9 (Pulborough Expansion)

Development is possible in this area subject to avoidance of impact upon known archaeological sites within West Glebe, assessment and mitigation of impacts on other archaeological sites, assessment and mitigation of visual impacts on the nearby Scheduled Ancient Monument and on the Conservation Area. Within West Glebe are visible earthworks believed to relate to former medieval properties, fronting Church Place, and a World War 2 gun emplacement. The gun emplacement, with its immediate vicinity, and, subject to further assessment, the earthworks should either be omitted from the development, or included with appropriate conservation and management arrangements. There are several other reported archaeological sites within the Option area. The Pulborough (Church Place) Conservation Area lies within the Option area, and the Pulborough Park Mound motte-and-bailey castle Scheduled Ancient Monument is located not far beyond the boundary. Visual impacts on the Ancient Monument and Conservation Area will need to be minimised. Impacts on other known archaeological sites within the Option area should be mitigated either through conservation or recording. A strategy for identification and assessment of other archaeological sites within the Option Area will be needed for completion of the overall archaeological mitigation approach. There are opportunities for enhancement of the historic environment and community benefit through integration of targeted biodiversity, landscape and archaeological site management in potential leisure use parts of the Option area.

Strategic Ecological comments

Site Option 1(West of Ifield)

Potential strategic ecological objection because the boundary as indicated would appear to incorporate: • a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), • two Sites of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI), • and an Ancient Semi-Natural Woodland,

The designated sites must be omitted from the development, buffered accordingly and ecologically improved to mitigate the increased impact of a growth in the local population. Buffers will be expected to be substantial and ecological in nature.

17 Assuming all impacts on designated sites and protected species can be mitigated the masterplanning will be expected show a robust approach to green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component in accordance with PPS9 paragraph 12, (also 10, 14 to 16) and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 2 (Faygate)

Development is possible in this location subject to the retention and ecological enhancement of the woodland and hedgerow matrix. The woodlands in this locale form strategic links within the wider landscape. The retained woodlands must be provided with a buffer zone of 15m. Buffers would be expected to be ecological in nature.

Masterplanning will be expected to show a robust approach to green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component, in accordance with policies PPS9 paragraph 12, 14 to 16 and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 3 (Western area: Holbrook Park)

Development is possible in this location subject to the retention and ecological enhancement of the woodland and hedgerow matrix. The connectivity between woodlands in this locale would be expected to be improved as part of a strategic development. Impacts on the northern Sites of Nature Conservation Importance must be assessed and mitigated. The retained woodlands must be provided with a buffer zone of at least 15m. Buffers would be expected to be ecological in nature.

Masterplanning will be expected show a robust approach to green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component in accordance with policies PPS9 paragraph 12, 14 to 16 and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 4 (Eastern area: Chennells Brook)

Development is possible in this location subject to the retention and ecological enhancement of the woodland and hedgerow matrix. The site lies adjacent to and possibly includes an ancient woodland. The ancient woodland must be retained and sensibly buffered from the development. The connectivity between woodlands in this locale would be expected to be improved as part of a strategic development. The retained woodlands must be provided with a buffer zone of at least 15m. Buffers would be expected to be ecological in nature.

Masterplanning will be expected show a robust approach to green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component in accordance with policies PPS9 paragraph 10, 18 12, 14 to 16 and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 5 (South Horsham – Chesworth Farm)

Although carrying no formal designation it has a rich assemblage of rare and protected species recorded.

Development is possible in this location, but for it to succeed a very strong ecological component must be built in at the very earliest stage in the masterplanning process. The connectivity between woodlands the in this locale would be expected to be improved as part of a strategic development. Masterplanning will be expected show a robust approach to green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component in accordance with policies PPS9 paragraph 12, 14 to 16 and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 6 (West of Southwater)

This site incorporates a SNCI and lies adjacent to a southerly ancient woodland.

Development is possible in this location subject to the retention and ecological enhancement of the woodland and hedgerow matrix. The connectivity between woodlands the in this locale would be expected to be improved as part of a strategic development. Impacts on the Site of Nature Conservation Importance must be assessed and mitigated. The retained woodlands must be provided with a buffer zone of at least 15m (increasing for the SNCI). Buffers would be expected to be ecological in nature.

Masterplanning will be expected to show a robust approach to green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component in accordance with policies PPS9 paragraph 10, 12, 14 to 16 and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 7 (East of Billingshurst)

Incorporates a SNCI and lies adjacent to a southerly SNCI/ancient woodland.

Masterplanning will be expected show a robust approach to 19 green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component in accordance with policies PPS9 paragraph 10, 12, 14 to 16 and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 8 (Adversane/North Heath)

This site incorporates two and possibly three ancient woodlands. A record of unimproved grassland exists albeit from some time ago (1988).

Development is possible in this location subject to the retention and ecological enhancement of the woodland / ancient woodland and hedgerow matrix. The connectivity between woodlands in this locale would be expected to be improved as part of a strategic development. Impacts on the ancient woodlands must be assessed and mitigated. The retained woodlands must be provided with a buffer zone of at least 15m (increasing for sensitive areas). Buffers would be expected to be ecological in nature.

Masterplanning will be expected show a robust approach to green infrastructure with a strong and functional ecological component in accordance with policies PPS9 paragraph 10, 12, 14 to 16 and South East Plan policies CC8 and NRM5. Also relevant ODPM Circ. 06/2005 Para. 98 & 99 and BS5837:2005.

Site Option 9 (Pulborough Expansion)

This site appears to incorporate a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and incorporates a Site of Nature Conservation Importance (SNCI). Records of unimproved grasslands exist albeit from some time ago (1988).

Development is possible in this location subject to the retention and ecological enhancement of the habitat matrix in the southerly third of the site. The connectivity between habitats the in this locale would be expected to be improved as part of a strategic development. Impacts on the ancient woodlands must be assessed and mitigated. The retained habitats and SNCI / SSSI must be provided with a buffer zone of at least 15m (increasing for sensitive areas). Buffers would be expected to be ecological in nature.

Strategic Landscape comments

Site Option 1(West of Ifield)

This site consists of three different characteristic areas.

20 1. To the east of Rusper Road the land is arable and has over the years lost several of its hedgerows and has few individual trees. The land has a general open character.

2. West and south of the Rusper road is the manicured in character Rusper Golf Course. Field patterns and hedgerows have disappeared but the area has retained many individual trees.

3. To the west and north-west, the landform rises to the south and the landscape has retained its medieval pattern of small and predominantly pastoral fields with strong hedgerow features and tree cover.

Initial findings suggest that there may be an overriding landscape objection to any development on agricultural or ‘green’ land, which would change the character of the countryside associated with this potential site.

In area 3 of this site, where the landscape character is of the Low Weald, any potential development would significantly damage the character and integrity of this remarkable network of fields and trees and should be strongly resisted.

However, the land to the east is relatively flat and development here could be assimilated into the landscape subject to the retention of existing features, strong mitigation planting and screening without having a major visual implication. This applies to areas 1 and 2 above where the landscape has been modified over the years.

Any potential development to the eastern part of this site should provide close detail to internal green infrastructure and periphery.

Site Option 2 (Faygate)

The proposed site falls into two character areas, the low Weald Vale through which major communication routes follow and to the north the rising ground of the Low Weald Hills. The area is currently under arable farming and has lost much of its former field pattern with the removal of hedgerows and trees. This is particularly so on the valley floor. However the strong woodland cover on the northern slopes disguises loss of hedgerows and trees. Initial findings:

• There may be a principle landscape objection to the potential development of the surrounding fieldscape.

• A strong landscape objection could result to any development on the rising land to the north of the site. Such development here would be visible from long distances and be difficult to screen.

• However, there is potential for development to be assimilated in this landscape on the lower ground of 21 the valley floor, which is currently reasonably well screened, straddling the railway line. This would need to be subject to strong structural planting on the periphery and within any sympathetic design.

Site Option 3 (Western Area, Holbrook Park)

This comprises an open landscape with occasional hedgerows, rising ground to the north and north-east with occasional views to the south from higher ground. The large field to the east of potential site was formally the parkland of Holbrook House. Agricultural improvement has resulted in the removal of parkland trees. In conclusion:

• There may be a principle landscape objection to any development in this area of countryside.

• Any development on the rising ground to the north should be strongly resisted.

• However, potential for development on the southern section of the site without major visual implications provided associated peripheral and internal tree planting is implemented.

Site Option 4 (Eastern Area, Chennells Brook)

This area consists of low lying arable farmland with tree and shrub cover alongside rivers/ streams and Bush Lane.

• The potential for a principle landscape objection to development in the countryside. Initial findings:

• It is considered that any development in this area would be visually intrusive, and that mitigation planting would not help to reduce the visual impact of housing on this site.

Site Option 5 (South Horsham, Chesworth Farm)

This potential site is bounded on the north side by existing housing development and allotments. The land rises from the Arun River northwards. Relatively close proximity to Horsham town centre. Initial findings:

• The potential for a principle landscape objection to major development in the countryside. Development would impact on the rural appearance of this locality and impact on the passive recreational activities in the Arun valley.

• However, potential development area in view of the adjacent housing development.

• Considerable landscape mitigation will be necessary to the south and within potential development, to ensure the integrity of the Arun valley and passive recreational activities remain, albeit a reduced area.

22 • Need for sensitive treatment of land alongside PROW’s within development to provide green corridors linking with open space to the south.

Site Option 6 (West of Southwater)

This site consists of generally open agricultural land with light hedgerow and tree cover. The northern section of the site is relatively flat, with the southern section being more undulating with a small stream valley. Initial findings:

• There is potential for a principle landscape objection to the development within the countryside.

• The former A24 (Worthing Road) provides a definite boundary on the western side of Southwater. Major development between the old A24 and new bypass has presented the opportunity for both housing and light industry development.

• Any development extension towards Two Mile Lane should be resisted. Any extension to Christ’s Hospital would have damaging visual implications.

• Development to the west of the former A24 would intrude into the countryside. However, estate development at New Road has set precedence for development to the west. Therefore there is potential for development subject to tree and shrub planting in order to provide a strong visual barrier on the western boundary and buffer between development and the countryside.

Site Option 7 (East of Billingshurst)

This is an enclosed undulating landscape of predominantly small scale pasture fields, with strong hedgerow and tree cover. The area is divided into three sections by the railway to the south and the A272 to the north.

The character of the central section has been seriously damaged by development of the Rosier Industrial estate and some hedgerow loss for arable farming.

The northern section has a gentle fall to the north. A small scale field pattern with strong hedgerows and tree cover provides enclosure.

The southern section is a valley feature with dominant hedgerow cover and an east west flowing stream. The southern edge is bounded by Rosier Wood, an area of Ancient Woodland. Initial findings:

• There is potential for a principle landscape objection to development in the countryside.

• Development within the northern and southern sections should be strongly resisted which would damage the existing field structure and would open 23 up views that would have visual implications. Development adjacent to Ancient Woodland would result in public access into the area and damage the sensitive structure of this wood.

• Despite being on higher ground there is potential for development on the central section using land which has been disturbed by previous apparently random Rosier Farm Industrial Estate. Considerable tree planting and screening will be necessary to prevent views of any development from outside the site.

Site Option 8 (East of Adversane/North Heath)

There is the potential for a strategic landscape objection to the principle of major new housing development and the necessary infrastructure within a relatively remote part of a rural low weald landscape.

Site Option 9 (Pulborough extension)

Northward rising ground predominantly of large scale arable fields, but smaller and enclosed pattern adjacent to stream valley north of Coombelands Lane. Despite the northern section being on high ground, distance views into area from outside public locations are limited. Initial findings:

• There is the potential for a principle landscape objection due to development on green field sites.

• However, potential for some limited development subject to considerable mitigation planting along the western edge of development and internal structural planting and associated corridor open space.

Strategic Highways & Transport comments

The County Council, as highway authority, would have concerns regarding the potential impact on highways capacity and safety of one or more development sites being allocated in relatively close proximity to the existing Strategic Locations at West of Bewbush and West of Horsham. This would be particularly so if more than one of the development options in the Horsham and Crawley corridor between these two existing settlements were to be permitted i.e. West of Ifield, Faygate, North Horsham and Chesworth Farm.

The Consultation and Background Documents have incorporated our informal highway and transport comments that were supplied to the District Council earlier in 2009. [NB: For convenience, these comments are reproduced as Appendix B to this report].

However, we were not consulted informally as regards Strategic Site Option 8 (Adversane/North Heath). Therefore, we have the following preliminary comments to make:

24 This is a large site in the existing countryside to the east of the Arun Valley railway line with the potential for 4,000 dwellings. No direct links to the Strategic Road Network, but an access onto the A29 could be achieved by constructing a new road bridge across the railway line to join the A29 at Brinsbury College. The existing Brinsbury College access should be accommodated within any new junction. Potential for a new railway station, subject to Network Rail approval, as site lies adjacent to the railway line. This could resolve some of the problems of students travelling to Brinsbury College. However, lead in times for new stations can be many years. The site is remote from the nearest settlements and lacks any shops, community facilities or employment centres. These would have to be created as part of the new settlement to reduce the amount of out- commuting to the larger towns of Horsham, Crawley etc. In any event, there are serious concerns about the increase in traffic generated by a development on this scale on the A29, particularly on Pulborough to the south with its food stores and obvious highway constraints, and all non-strategic routes leading east to the A24. Bus services would need to be improved between Pulborough, Billingshurst and Horsham. There would appear little scope for improved pedestrian and cycle links from the site to Pulborough and Billingshurst unless parts of the public right of way network could be upgraded.

Likely transport requirements are:

• A new railway crossing bridge and junction onto the A29 London Road incorporating access to Brinsbury College. • A new railway station. However, WSCC would need to be convinced (such as an agreement ‘in principle’ from Network Rail & HM Railway Inspectorate) that a new station could be delivered. • Capacity and safety improvements to parts of the highway network likely to be subject to significant levels of increased traffic - particularly in Pulborough and all routes east to the A24. • Regular bus services linking the development with Pulborough, Billingshurst and Horsham. • Improvements to pedestrian and cycle links between the site and Pulborough and Billingshurst. • Real-Time Passenger Information (RTPI) to be provided at bus stops on the new bus service route. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels.

Strategic Minerals Safeguarding comments

Paragraph 13 of Mineral Planning Statement 1: Planning and Minerals states that; County Councils are required to define Mineral Safeguarding Areas (MSA) in order that proven resources are not needlessly sterilised by non-mineral development. Mineral Consultation Areas (MCA) can also be used as a mechanism to ensure that in two-tier authority areas consultation takes place between county and district 25 planning authorities when mineral interests could be compromised by non-mineral development.

West Sussex County Council commissioned a study by the British Geological Society in 2007 to help inform how the Council will determine a MSA and a MCA as part of the development of the Minerals and Waste Development Framework (MWDF). This study is available on the County Council’s website using the link below:-

(http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/ccm/content/your-council/plans-policies- reports-and-initiatives/mwdf/background-documents.en)

It identifies the best geological resources within the county, including local knowledge from the industry, about the areas which might be economic now or might become so in the future for mineral extraction.

The County Council will be developing MSAs and MCAs as part of the emerging Minerals and Waste Core Strategy, based on the evidence presented in the BGS study and information gathered from stakeholders. At present, the MSAs and MCAs are shown as the same areas in the BSG Study. They will eventually be shown on the key diagram in the adopted Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. District and Borough Councils are also obliged to show the MSAs on their LDF proposals map and reflect the MCAs in their Core Strategy, once the MWDF has been formally adopted by the County Council.

The following shows which MSAs (as defined in the BGS Study) each of the potential strategic development areas fall within:

Strategic Site Option Mineral Safeguarding Area Option 1: West of Ifield Brick clay Option 2: Faygate Brick clay and consolidated Option 3: Holbrook Park Brick clay and consolidated Option 4: Chennells Brook Brick clay and consolidated Option 5: South Horsham Brick clay and consolidated Option 6: West of Consolidated bedrock Option 7: East of Brick clay Option 8: Brick clay Option 9: Pulborough Consolidated bedrock and

Options within the brick clay MSA (Options 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7 and 8)

The site options which fall within the brick clay MSA are situated within the weald clay type. Due to the extent of the weald clay, the County Council is likely to take a pragmatic approach, preferring to safeguard areas around existing clay pits. With regard to the sites to the north of Horsham, Holbrook Park (Option 3) is situated in close proximity to the existing Warnham brickworks. Initial discussions with the operator suggest that they would wish to see the area immediately around the site safeguarded. Development in this location should not prejudice the continued operation of the brickworks or sterilise the mineral resource.

Option within the sand MSA (Option 9)

The potential strategic development area at Pulborough lies within the unconsolidated sand MSA, therefore the presence of this resource should be taken into consideration. Resource assessments should be sought to identify whether the material is economically viable and whether steps can be taken to ensure that the material is not sterilised.

Options within the consolidated bedrock MSA (Option 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 9)

Consolidated bedrock is used for crushed rock aggregate and building stone. A continuing supply of building stone for new building and for restoration is necessary to maintain local vernacular and building character. The County Council will be gathering further evidence as part of the Core Strategy to identify which areas should be safeguarded for this purpose. Options 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 are situated within the Horsham Stone bedrock type. This is a highly valued source of building stone and there is one remaining quarry at Theale to the West of Horsham. The site at Pulborough lies within the Hythe formation bedrock which is used as aggregate and building stone.

Potential Waste Sites

The County Council must plan to provide new waste management facilities to meet the capacity gap until 2026. Background Paper 6: Strategic Waste Sites provides the latest information on the capacity gap and what needs to be required over the plan period. The Minerals and Waste Policy Team are in the process of identifying sites for new waste development to meet the capacity shortfall until 2026. It is anticipated that a list of potential waste sites within West Sussex will be available as part of further targeted consultation in November 2009.

It is important for District Councils to work jointly with the County to ensure that opportunities for new or extended waste sites are not lost and that existing sites are given 27 consideration. Some types of waste management facilities can be accommodated on industrial areas (and generate employment) and this should be taken into account when reviewing employment land. Furthermore, the identification of potential development sites must consider the integration of waste management facilities to serve the development. Such waste uses could include the potential for energy from waste.

Existing Waste Sites

The existing network of waste sites is also currently being examined by WSCC as part of the strategic waste site selection process. This will result in the safeguarding of a network of the most suitable waste sites as well as the identification of potential new sites. As there are many difficulties associated with established new waste facilities, it is essential that the stock of existing sites is protected from inappropriate neighbouring developments that may prejudice their continuing efficient operation. It is also important to ensure that existing sites are not lost to other forms of development unless there are overriding reasons for their redevelopment (which should be discussed with WSCC). The most up to date list and map of existing waste sites is set out in the AMR (December 2008) which is available to download from the website (www.westsussex.gov.uk/mwdf).

Option 3 (Holbrook Park):

This site appears to lie in close proximity to three sites which were identified as a potential allocation in the Strategic Waste Site Allocations DPD (2007) – Brookhurst Wood Extension, Warnham Brickworks and Langhurstwood Quarry. The Warnham Brickworks site is the subject of a current planning application to deliver the proposed Mechanical and Biological Treatment (MBT) plant as part of the County Council’s Materials Resource Management Contract (MRMC). The County Council would object to development that would prejudice the continued operation of the existing landfill site and any future waste uses on the site.

Waste Water Treatment

The requirement for new or extended waste water treatment works is closely linked to new development proposals. Joint working is required between the Districts and statutory sewerage undertakers in order to identify likely future requirements and in particular, if new sites will need to be identified in the Minerals and Waste Core Strategy. Southern Water has identified that additional Waste Water Treatment Works capacity may be required to accommodate the additional growth in Horsham District. Issues for other core policies The Historic Environment

Policy BE6 (Management of the Historic Environment) of the South East Plan states that:

“When developing and implementing plans and strategies, 28 local authorities and other bodies will adopt policies and support proposals which protect, conserve and, where appropriate, enhance the historic environment and the contribution it makes to local and regional distinctiveness and sense of place. The region’s internationally and nationally designated historic assets should receive the highest level of protection. Proposals that make sensitive use of historic assets through regeneration, particularly where these bring redundant or under-used buildings and areas into appropriate use should be encouraged.”

The need for protection of the historic environment of Horsham District is referred to in existing Core Strategy Spatial Objective 2 and in the explanatory text for existing Policy CP1, but no existing Core Policy refers specifically to the Historic Environment.

In order to ensure that the Core Policies reflect the new South East Plan, Historic Environment Policy, whilst retaining the overall balance in articulation of policies (3.24), the following amendment to CP1 is suggested:

POLICY CP1 Landscape and Townscape Character

The historic environment and landscape character of the District, including the settlement pattern, together with the townscape character of settlements will be maintained and enhanced. Activities which may influence character should only take place where:

a. The historic environment, landscape and townscape character is protected, conserved or enhanced taking into account key landscape and settlement characteristics, including maintaining settlement separation; b. Protected historic assets, landscapes and species are properly protected and enhanced; c. The biodiversity of the District is conserved and enhanced.

Meeting Housing Needs

The County Council has reservations about the retention of the existing policy that development in the smaller villages should continue to be on the basis of 100% affordable housing. By ruling out the possibility of cross-subsidy with open market housing, there seems to be a real risk that this policy will stifle all residential development in small settlements, undermining any possibility of supporting and retaining rural facilities and services. This is not to suggest that development should be spread throughout the District (as per Strategic Spatial Option 1), but that Strategic Spatial Option 2 should be pursued, subject to allowing for appropriate amounts of small-scale development in the smaller settlements.

Chapter 4: Delivering Comment the Spatial Strategy

29 for Horsham District The Importance of The County Council fully supports the concept of partnership Partnership Working working. The emerging Infrastructure Plans are one, of many, ways that this is being undertaken with Horsham District Council. Securing infrastructure, The needs of the County Council as a service provider services and facilities Which ever options are chosen, it will be vitally important that adequate infrastructure to serve all new development is provided at an appropriate time.

Children and Young People's Services

The provision of education and youth facilities will need to be fully integrated into all proposals at an early stage. There will be a need for appropriate financial and site contributions from the developments to enable Children and Young People's Services (CYPS) to deliver the required infrastructure in a sustainable geographical distribution and to the quality and level of innovation that should be expected by the existing and new Horsham residents.

The CYPS response described below assumes that the West of Horsham development of 2000 homes and West of Bewbush (Crawley) development of 2500 homes will proceed as planned. For West of Horsham, this involves seeking both primary/secondary and sixth form contributions; a new site of 2.5 FE (Form Entry) for the move of the existing Shelley Primary School / additional provision will be provided at the Arunside PS; Tanbridge House will need to expand from 8 FE to 10 FE in permanent accommodation. For West of Bewbush, CYPS are seeking primary, secondary and sixth form contributions and 2 sites within the new development for either two 2 FEs or a 2 and a 1 FE primary provision.

Comments on the Strategic Spatial Options

Option 1 (Spread Development Throughout the District) - This option presents problems for education provision mainly due to the possibility of no one development site being sufficiently large enough to promote a new primary and definitely not a new secondary school(s). Many existing schools would be incapable of expansion and/or it would be undesirable for education reasons to expand them.

Option 2 (Focus Development on the Main/Most Sustainable Existing Settlements) - This option represents best immediate solution to education provision arising from the new housing levels. New primary and secondary provision could come forward based on settlement sizes of 1500 / 2000 / 3000 houses.

Option 3 (Concentrated Development in Each Sub Region within a New Settlement) – A large, Eco town type, stand alone development would be required to be self sustaining in terms of education provision for both primary and secondary. Any location would of necessity impinge on existing school catchments and would need careful assimilation into the overall pattern of provision. The new 30 settlement schools may appear more attractive to parents and existing schools may suffer from falling numbers or conversely there may be an outflow of pupils to existing schools which may cause an overloading of demand for places.

Option 4 (A combination of any or all the above options - Hybrid) - This option represents major challenges to education provision especially in achieving the "critical mass" of new pupils required to bring forward the needed school provision.

Comments on the Strategic Site Options

Site 1 (West of Ifield) - This site will be seen as an extension of the approved West of Bewbush site. The current proposals for that site i.e. 2 new primary schools would form the basis of provision but with an increase in size from 2-2.5 FE and the 1 FE increasing to 2 or 2.5 FE. An alternative may be to maintain two 2 FE schools with a 1-1.5 FE in the north of the proposed development to provide a sustainable local focus for education possibly in association with a proposed neighbourhood centre.

In terms of secondary provision, the capability of existing Crawley / Horsham schools to cope with a combined provision of 5,000 new houses on the west of Crawley would required a consideration of major extensions to both Ifield and Thomas Bennett and possibly Holy Trinity and St. Wilfrids and/or the provision of a new secondary. If the latter, then a site for a 6 FE secondary would be sought.

Site 2 (Faygate) - Development of this site would require its own self-contained primary provision 2-2.5 FE with the provision of a suitable site. In respect of secondary, it presents a similar scenario to Site 1 but its location away from Crawley would accentuate the need for a new secondary rather than the extension of existing Crawley provision. The capacity of existing Horsham schools to take pupils from this development area would be severely limited.

Note: Should a combination of Sites 1 and 2 proceed; then a new secondary provision site might need to be at least 7 FE.

Sites 3 and 4 (North Horsham) - These combined sites would generate a need for a new, at least, 2 FE primary. Some primary places currently exist in the north-east of Horsham (Northolmes) but these are at some distance from the new development and south of the main A264. Secondary provision starts to point a new secondary especially if these sites were combined with Site 2 coming forward. Some places may be available at Tanbridge House and Forest but in respect of the former much of its increased capacity from 8 FE to 10 FE will be absorbed by the Broadbridge Heath development. Should, however, Site 6 (Southwater) come forward, some of Tanbridge House school's existing pupils that originate from Southwater would remain in a new school in Southwater and possibly create some spare capacity at Tanbridge House. 31

Site 5 (Chesworth Farm) - This site would require the provision of 1.5-2 FE primary. Some pupils may be accommodated in existing south/north-east Horsham schools but those with current capacity are at some distance from this possible development site.

Note - As with other options, combinations of sites coming forward, e.g. Site 3/4 will reduce the capability of existing primary schools to accommodate pupils from this site.

In respect of secondary, capability of existing schools to accommodate pupils arising from this development would be very limited. Should, however, Chesworth be the only Horsham option taken forward, the 1 FE of secondary demand would present a particular problem being in itself too small to generate a new secondary but potentially too large to be accommodated in existing schools with possible expansions. Again, however, a new Southwater secondary may create some capacity in the medium/long term in Horsham.

Site 6 (Southwater) - This option would generate the need for new primary provision ideally at 1.5-2 FE and for a new secondary school of 5-6 FE. The secondary would initially pick up pupils from the new development and gradually over time pupils who would have travelled to Tanbridge House and other Horsham schools would also use the new school. It is envisaged that in addition, should Site 7 (Billingshurst) proceed, there may be a need to adjust The Weald School's eastern catchment area with pupils who currently would have attended The Weald attending a new Southwater School. Their places at The Weald being taken up by pupils from the new development immediate to the east of the school/Billingshurst. We would, therefore, be seeking both a primary and a secondary school site combined with pupil contributions.

Site 7 (East of Billingshurst) - Currently The Weald is at capacity and existing infant, junior/primary has very little spare capacity. Such a proposed new development would therefore require the provision of a new 1.5-2 FE.

In respect of secondary, as stated for Site 6 above, some adjustment of The Weald's eastern catchment may generate some capacity at the school. However, this would depend on a new secondary school at Southwater coming forward and that there were sufficient pupils in any reallocated catchment to create the necessary capacity for the new pupils from Site 7. The capability of The Weald to increase numbers could be investigated but current indications are that this would prove a difficult option to take forward and may not be desirable in educational terms.

Site 8 (Adversane/North Heath) - A development of this scale (some 4000 dwellings) would present a major infrastructure problem necessitating a possible provision of two 2 FE primary schools and the need for new secondary provision. Such a development would ideally lead to the 32 establishment of a new secondary school 4 - 6 FE. CYPS would, therefore, seek sites for the primary and secondary schools plus contributions for the required number of school places.

Site 9 (Pulborough Expansion) - The relatively small scale by comparison to other locations of this proposal (280 units) would possibly mean that primary provision could be accommodated in existing schools with expansion of their accommodation. This, however, would require detailed assessment as to its practicality/desirability.

Should Site 8 proceed, secondary pupils from this development might utilise any new school at Adversane/North Heath. Without an Adversane development, this new secondary pupil demand would be difficult to immediately accommodate given the capacity issues at The Weald. There may, however, be possibilities of provision initially at Rydon Middle School in Storrington and subsequently at Steyning. At both these schools existing capacity issues and the overall desirability of any changes would need careful consideration.

The Fire & Rescue Service

Comments will follow by the end of October.

The Library Service

Current thinking suggests that the Library Service will continue to develop Horsham library as the major library for the greater community and that the smaller libraries in Pulborough and Billingshurst will provide support. In addition, there are various mobile stops in the area.

As far as future library provision is concerned the general approach is that any new large scale community that has a distinctive community focus such as a community centre should have library provision as part of that community building rather than stand alone buildings. As regards further information on library provision it would be necessary to understand the nature of the community and then plan accordingly. This will be once a preferred strategy is known.

Supported Housing

WSCC Adults and Children Services produced earlier this year a ‘Needs Analysis for Supported Housing in West Sussex’ report. The aim of this document is to help some of the most vulnerable members of our community lead fuller and more independent lives by ensuring suitable housing is available for them in which they can receive the support they need.

The Needs Analysis represents a major shift in the way people with disabilities, older people and other vulnerable customers are supported in West Sussex. Many of these customers would prefer to live in the community and to receive the support they need in housing. However, the 33 development of this type of supported housing is relatively new in West Sussex and the supply is therefore quite limited. In the absence of supported housing these customers have little choice about where they live and will often live in residential almost institutional settings.

This Needs Analysis is intended to do two things. Firstly it predicts the numbers of customers who may be suitable for supported housing in West Sussex. Secondly, based on customer consultation and research, it tries to outline how customers would like the supported housing to be.

The Needs Analysis can then guide the County Council in its decisions about where and how to bring forward Supported Housing. The County Council is not a Housing Authority and has no obligation to house the majority of the population of West Sussex. However, it does have a statutory duty to support the most vulnerable members of our community. That statutory duty does mean we have to provide them with an appropriate setting in which they can receive that support. For the reasons set out above that setting is increasingly in supported housing rather than residential care.

The County Council has recognised that it has a key role to play in bringing forward the Supported Housing necessary to meet those needs. For example it has agreed to sell its own land at a discount, where this is justified by revenue savings, in order to bring forward supported housing. This Needs Analysis gives a picture of supply and demand for Supported Housing which the County Council can use to decide which land to bring forward.

The Needs Analysis should be a key tool for land use planners. The picture of the future demand for Supported Housing provided in this Needs Analysis can help the District and Borough Councils in preparing their Local Development Frameworks. Government policy (Planning Policy Statement 3 – Housing, paragraph 21) recommends that:

“Local Planning Authorities should plan for a mix of housing on the basis of the different types of households that are likely to require housing over the plan period. This will include having particular regard to: - current and future demographic trends and profiles, - the accommodation requirements of specific groups, in particular, families with children, older and disabled people.”

The housing needs of the vulnerable people covered by this Needs Analysis should therefore be taken into account when calculating the need for Affordable Housing in a District or Borough Council area. Drawing on this work, WSCC Adults and Children Services wishes to continue to develop its relationship with the District in the planning of new supported housing for vulnerable people including older people, those with learning difficulties, people with physical 34 and sensory impairments and other needs groups.

Design preferences for people with physical disabilities. The housing needs of people with physical disabilities are extremely varied. Clearly the type of housing required will vary with the nature of the person’s disability and their physical and support needs. However, equally varied are the personal and family circumstances of people with disabilities and this is particularly true of those who acquired their disability later in life. Although many people rent their home, many own their property or would choose to do so if the right finance could be found.

Building homes to ‘Lifetime Standards’ will help to meet the needs of physically disabled people in the same way that it helps older people. However, Lifetime Homes Standards only guarantees access to the ground floor for wheelchair users and will not meet the needs of those in an electric wheelchair. There is therefore a higher standard of Lifetime Homes for wheelchair users. For example, the London Plan commits London Planning Authorities to building 10% of new housing to the wheelchair standard of Lifetime Homes.

There is National evidence that building to Lifetime Homes standards also saves Local Authorities money on Disabled Facilities Grant (DFG). There is therefore a clear economic incentive for Local Authorities to increase the number of homes built to Lifetime Standards in order to reduce its expenditure on DFG.

In terms of location, the aspiration should be to avoid significant “ghettos” of disabled people but to provide accommodation within the community. As with older people, the preference may well be for urban locations with good access to community facilities and services. A particular issue for physically disabled people can be car parking as they are often very dependent on their cars to get around. Dedicated parking close to their property is therefore desirable.

In terms of internal design the Lifetimes Homes Standards do provide a starting point. There are some common features that are usually necessary – e.g. large doorways, turning space for wheelchairs, level-access showers, level- access entry and door entry systems. However, each person with will have differing needs depending on the nature of their disability. Some people do not have, and never will, the fine motor skills required to cook food. Therefore, a low- level fitted kitchen is of no use as it may actually cause injury to the person who undertakes these tasks on their behalf. Internal design should therefore focus on being as adaptable as possible at minimum cost. Occupational Therapists can provide advice on the adaptation of accommodation to meet the needs of a particular disabled person.

Conclusion A successful partnership between the County Council and Horsham District Council will be crucial in order to identify 35 need, make the best use of resources and commission the range and type of supported housing required by our customers. It is important that this partnership is maintained and in doing so the delivery of housing which will meet specialist needs are delivered.

Flowing from the ‘Needs Analysis for Supported Housing in West Sussex’ the following requirements relate to the understanding of facilities required in Horsham to 2026. Appropriate contributions towards these requirements would be sought. Before/ After Core Strategy Approval:

• Number of extra care homes and extra car plus schemes needed for older people likely to be in need of Affordable Housing in 2026 – 6 (31 bedroom support homes); • New homes needed for people with Physical Disabilities - 43 units; • New homes needed for people with a learning disability – 86 units; • New homes for people with mental illness – 34 units; and • An anticipated number of countywide units are identified for Care Leavers and People with Substance misuse problems. Contributions would be sought towards such facilities in the urban area (specific unit provision for the area to be determined).

Further work is currently being carried out to develop more specific commissioning intentions. The results will be presented in a second report which is expected to be available by Spring 2010.

Wastes Management Services

It should be noted that there are TWO Household Waste Recycling Sites (HWRS) in the Horsham District area located at Hop Oast (Horsham) and in Billingshurst.

Wastes Management Services (WMS) are not directly mentioned in the Core Strategy Review Consultation document, however, wastes matters are discussed in the two background documents as follows:

The Potential Strategic Site Option Appraisals for each of the 9 options have entries under WMS which reflect earlier WMS consultation responses, however, we do not recall being consulted on option 8 (Adversane/North Heath)? As point of clarity, paragraph 3.24 does not appear to relate to Wastes Management Services and may have been misplaced from elsewhere (it does not occur in the other 8 documents)?

The Key Delivery Stakeholder Position Statements have Wastes Management Services entries generally as above for options 1, 2, 6, 7, 8 and 9, however, entries are missing for options 3, 4 and 5?

WMS will be able to comment in more detail once more details are known about a preferred strategy. 36 Sustainability Appraisal & No comments at this stage. Strategic Environmental Assessment Next Steps No comments.

Appendices Comment Appendix: List of These are noted. Background Documents Glossary No comments.

APPENDIX B

WSCC Infrastructure Requirements (Highways and Transport). Officer comments which were originally supplied to Horsham DC in May & August 2009.

All of the following major development proposals would have to be subject to comprehensive Transport Assessments in accordance with national guidance provided by PPG13, the DfT/DCLG March 2007 Guidelines for Transport Assessment and the West Sussex County Council Transport Methodology June 2007. Extensive transport modelling work or financial contributions to access existing transport models is also likely to be required.

1. Land to the West of Ifield, Crawley

Large peripheral site on the edge of the existing neighbourhoods of Ifield, Ifield West and Bewbush. No direct road links to the strategic road network – links only to the local road network. No immediate access to a mainline railway station with regular services – closest station is Ifield which is more of a halt and lacks frequent services. Fastway does not currently serve Ifield, but does serve Bewbush and is to be extended into the new development on Land West of Bewbush. Closest neighbourhood centre is Ifield which is well served by public transport, although demand exceeds capacity at certain times. Known traffic congestion on the A23 and A2220, especially during the peak hours. Extensive queuing takes place in Breezehurst Drive, Gossops Drive, Ifield Avenue, Tushmore roundabout, Martyrs Avenue and Manor Royal junctions. Evidence of accidents (especially serious) in Ifield and Bewbush. Problem of short-cutting traffic along rural roads (Rusper Road, Bonnets Lane etc) to avoid congestion. No bus priority, so buses have to queue with other traffic. A23 it is perceived as a barrier between the neighbourhoods on the west side of the A23 and the town centre.

• Provision of a new Western Relief Road (WRR) to serve the development from the strategic road network (A264 Crawley Road to A23 Lowfield Heath). Site has no links to the strategic road network and an increase in traffic through Ifield and Langley Green neighbourhoods would increase existing congestion at the existing A23 junctions leading to possible road safety and air quality issues. A WRR would take traffic off the A23 and, if properly designed, would deter short cutting along unsuitable rural roads. • Opportunity for Park and Ride site served off the southern part of the WRR served by extension to Fastway. • High quality public transport links to major transport interchanges, Crawley town centre, Ifield neighbourhood centre, Gatwick Airport and Manor Royal employment centres. • New road links from Ifield and Ifield West to the WRR to relieve A23 junctions (Ifield Avenue, Gossops Drive and Martyrs Avenue). This would free up junction capacity and allow bus priority measures to be introduced across the A23 Ifield Avenue roundabout into the town centre. However, any links would have to be designed to deter short- cutting along unsuitable roads. • Real-Time Passenger Information (RTPI) to be provided at bus stops and within each new dwelling to encourage public transport use. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels. • Excellent cycle and footway links within the development and to enhance the links to existing cycle and pedestrian networks in the town (including the Horsham-Crawley cyclepath) • Investigate improved frequency of rail services at Ifield station with Network Rail and the service operator.

38 2. Land around Faygate

Large peripheral site located to the north of the A264. Site has direct links to the strategic road network. Faygate has a mainline station but this is more of a halt and services are infrequent. There is very little employment and few community facilities in the village. If not provided, this would result in high levels of out-commuting to with resultant concerns about traffic impact on Crawley and Horsham. This could justify the provision of the Crawley Western Relief Road (WRR) or at least a significant contribution in association with Land West of Ifield. In addition, road safety improvements would be required to the A264. Significant concerns about short-cutting traffic along unsuitable roads to avoid traffic congestion in Crawley (e.g. Faygate Lane, Lambs Green Road, Rusper Road, Bonnets Lane etc). Bus services into the village are infrequent and those regular services between Horsham and Crawley stop on the A264 resulting in passengers having to cross this busy road. There could be timetabling problems in diverting bus services. Faygate Lane is unsuitable to serve a development of this scale as it is narrow, of poor alignment and lacks adequate pedestrian/cycle facilities in places (especially over the railway bridge). A new junction onto the A264 with a new link road into the development would therefore be required (including a new railway crossing) with the existing Faygate Lane/A264 junction being closed A bus/rail interchange at Faygate station should be investigated to pick up Horsham-Crawley through services as should increase in frequency of rail services from the station.

• Provision of, or a significant contribution towards, a new Crawley Western Relief Road (WRR) - A264 Crawley Road to A23 Lowfield Heath – to mitigate development traffic and deter short cutting along unsuitable rural roads. • The provision of a new junction onto the A264 with a new link road and railway line crossing. Faygate Lane to be closed and diverted onto this new link road at its northern end. • A new transport interchange at Faygate station should be investigated to accommodate existing through bus services, although there would be significant service implications. • A new pedestrian/cycle bridge across the A264 to provide a safe route across the A264. • Real-Time Passenger Information (RTPI) to be provided at bus stops and within each new dwelling to encourage public transport use. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels. • Excellent cycle and footway links within the development and to enhance the links to existing cycle and pedestrian networks in the town (including the Horsham-Crawley cyclepath) • Investigate improved frequency of rail services at Ifield station with Network Rail and the service operator.

3. Land at Holbrook Park, North Horsham

The A264 northern by-pass is a major barrier between this site and the fairly new neighbourhood of North Horsham to the south. It is therefore essential that new cycle/pedestrian/equestrian links are provided across the A264 to connect the two neighbourhoods in the form of bridges. The Langhurstwood Road junction onto the A264 forms part of the site but is left in/left out only. This road currently serves a number of industrial/commercial uses and also a major waste management facility on the brickworks site. There are currently some serious traffic and environmental issues caused by these uses for residents in Langhurstwood Road, so the allocation of this site does provide an 39 opportunity to investigate a new access road for industrial, commercial and waste traffic with a separate access for residential traffic. This would also allow the industrial and waste sites to be developer to their greater potential. There is a station at Warnham, but services are infrequent and it does not go to Crawley, the nearest major employment centre. Although it may be possible to improve the station and increase the number of services thereby making it attractive for some commuters, it is of much greater importance to improve Littlehaven station as this station is well used and has services calling at Crawley, Three Bridges and Gatwick. Littlehaven station though is more of a halt and has a number of deficiencies, including narrow platforms and high levels of on-street parking. The site is remote from Horsham station and bus station, so new bus services would also be required from the site into the North Horsham neighbourhood to the south using bus gateways.

The likely transport infrastructure requirements area:

• Provision of a new grade separated junction onto the A264 including the closure of the existing Langhurstwood Road junction. • Capacity improvements to other junctions along the A264, A2220 and A24. • Provision of a new access road to Langhurstwood Road and the brickworks site to serve the existing industrial/commercial/waste uses. The residential site would have to be provided with a separate access (although both uses could be served off the same junction on the A264). • New bridges across the A264 to provide safe links between the site and North Horsham neighbourhood. • Improvements to Littlehaven and Warnham (?) stations with an increased level of train services. • A bus gateway to be provided between the site and the North Horsham neighbourhood. • Regular bus services to be provided between the site, Littlehaven station, Horsham station and the town centre, to include Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) at bus stops and within new dwellings. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels.

4. Land at Chennells Brook, North Horsham

Large peripheral site to the north of Horsham adjacent to the A264 Horsham northern bypass. The A264 is part of the strategic road network and there is a direct frontage from the site to this road. It is envisaged that an adequate junction could be formed onto the A264 to serve the development. However, the impact on other junctions along the A264 and A24 would have to be established and, in particular, the impact on the approach junctions to Crawley. The A264 northern by-pass is a major barrier between this site and the fairly new neighbourhood of North Horsham to the south. It is therefore essential that new cycle/pedestrian/equestrian links are provided across the A264 to connect the two neighbourhoods in the form of bridges. Access to the site could be achieved from the existing Rusper Road roundabout, although this may need to be modified to accommodate the additional traffic. The nearest railway station is Littlehaven station which is well used and has services calling at Crawley, Three Bridges and Gatwick. Littlehaven station though is more of a halt and has a number of deficiencies, including narrow platforms and high levels of on-street parking. The site is remote from Horsham station and bus station, so new bus services would also be required from the site into the North Horsham neighbourhood to the south using bus gateways.

The likely transport infrastructure requirements area:

• Access to the A264 from a modified Rusper Road roundabout. • Capacity improvements to other junctions along the A264, A2220 and A24. • New bridges across the A264 to provide safe links between the site and North Horsham neighbourhood. 40 • Improvements to Littlehaven station with an increased level of train services. • A bus gateway to be provided between the site and the North Horsham neighbourhood. • Regular bus services to be provided between the site and Littlehaven station, Horsham station and the town centre, to include Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) at bus stops and within new dwellings. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels.

5. Land to the south of Horsham – Chesworth Farm

This is a large peripheral site on the south side of Horsham. No direct links to the strategic road network. Potential links to the non-strategic A281 Brighton Road via Kerves Lane. No immediate vehicular or cycle/pedestrian links to Horsham mainline station. The station, itself, also requires forecourt improvements to improve the public transport interchange and pedestrian/cycle provision. There are likely to be significant issues associated with traffic using Kerves Lane and other potential residential roads together with increasing the existing short-cutting problems to the south, particularly to and from Southwater. The existing junctions onto the A281 are also poor and there are capacity and safety issues caused by on-street parking and servicing associated with existing businesses, particularly in the area of East Street approaching Horsham town centre near the railway bridge. Although bus services could possibly be improved, there seems little potential for bus priority due to these constraints.

As there are a number of significant transport issues associated with this site, not least its lack of access to any part of the strategic road network, it is difficult to come up with a specific list of transport requirements. However, the following would need to be addressed:

• Lack of access to the strategic road network would increase traffic onto non-strategic roads, particularly the A281. Some form of new southern relief road would therefore be required to mitigate the impact of the development and take traffic away from the town centre. • There are already capacity (and safety) issues on the A281 in the East Street area. If no relief road is provided then existing and increased congestion would encourage traffic to use other more unsuitable routes into and around Horsham. Traffic is likely to increase most along Kerves Lane, Coltstaple Lane, Southwater Street, St.Leonards Road and Comptons Lane. • Horsham station and bus station are both some distance from the site and pedestrian/cycle links to these key public transport hubs are poor as pedestrians/cyclists need to cross busy roads and cyclists have to share many routes with other traffic. The cycle/pedestrian networks would therefore have to be significantly improved. • Horsham station is in need of improvement to improve the station forecourt area to accommodate better public transport access. Regular bus services between the site and railway station would be essential. • The introduction of new/improved bus services serving the development (including bus gateways where appropriate) would have to be investigated to bypass areas of congestion, to include Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) at bus stops and within new dwellings. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels.

6. Land to the West of Southwater

A large peripheral site on the west side of Southwater. Potential links to the strategic road network from the A24 at Hop Oast roundabout to the north. No immediate vehicular or cycle/pedestrian links to a mainline station with regular services. Closest station is Christs Hospital but services are infrequent and car parking problems exist. Horsham station is some distance away, but it has more frequent services, so regular bus links to this station 41 essential to avoid additional problems at Christs Hospital (although it may be possible to provide improved cycle/pedestrian links to the latter). The main access to the site would have to be from Hop Oast roundabout with a secondary access point to Worthing Road to the south. There are capacity issues at Hop Oast roundabout which buses have to negotiate en-route from Southwater to the Hop Oast Park and Ride and Horsham town centre. The increase in traffic along Worthing Road is of significant concern, particularly across the frontage of the two primary schools, and northwards to the Blakes Farm Road roundabout serving the industrial estate. A new link road would therefore be required through the development between Hop Oast roundabout to a point south of the primary schools with possible closures of parts of Worthing Road to reduce traffic and improve road safety (but perhaps with bus priority/cycle access). There may also be an opportunity to provide a new road link from the A24 to Two Mile Ash Road to relieve the Boars Head junction. However, this may just encourage more short-cutting to avoid congestion at Hop Oast roundabout. A bus/cycle link to Two Mile Ash Road and Christs Hospital station may therefore be a better solution and would allow cyclists to use the tunnel under the A24.

• Improvements to the capacity of Hop Oast roundabout including bus priority measures. • A new link road through the development from Hop Oast roundabout to a point south of the two primary schools. • The closure of parts of Worthing Road to reduce traffic flows and improve road safety. • A possible bus/cycle link to Two Mile Ash Road. • Excellent cycle and footway links within the development and to enhance the links to existing cycle and pedestrian networks in Horsham and the surrounding area. • Real-Time Passenger Information (RTPI) to be provided at bus stops and within each new dwelling to encourage public transport use. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels.

7. Land to the East of Billingshurst

A large peripheral site on the east side of Billingshurst. Potential links to the strategic road network from the A29 and A272. No immediate vehicular or cycle/pedestrian links to Billingshurst mainline station but possible opportunity to provide new cycle/pedestrian links. The station has short platforms which restricts access for passengers and can lead to lengthy delays at the railway crossing. The recently constructed A29 Billingshurst western bypass has taken a high proportion of traffic away from the town centre, but there are still significant issues associated with through traffic using the A272. There was previously a longstanding approved scheme for an A272 Billingshurst north-eastern bypass but this was rescinded a few years ago. There are a number of constraints on the A272; the existing humped back railway bridge (width and alignment), Coolham Crossroads (accidents and traffic speeds), Buck Barn Crossroads (capacity and queuing) and A272 general (accidents). Need to establish impact of development on Pulborough. Road safety issues at the junction of New Road with the A29 to the north of the site. Bus services to and from the town are reasonably good but there are no services that run within the town itself.

Likely transport infrastructure requirements are:

• The provision of a North-Eastern Relief Road (to include the A272 railway bridge) to take A272 traffic around Billingshurst and away from the town centre. A reduction in traffic through the town centre would improve cycle and pedestrian safety, the retail environment and air quality. The new development would primarily have to be accessed from the new Relief Road to deter short-cutting through the town but would also need to provide excellent cycle and footpath links to shops, schools, the station and other local facilities. • The possible introduction of new/improved bus services (including bus gateways where appropriate) to serve the development to include Real Time Passenger Information (RTPI) at bus stops and within new dwellings.

42 • A contribution towards the improvement of facilities at Billingshurst station in association with the new rail franchisee’s station travel plan, including the refurbishment of the railway station area, realignment of the level crossing, improved bus/rail interchange etc. • The introduction of further speed reducing measures in West Street and the High Street (using the Home Zone philosophy) to create a low speed environment and to deter short cutting traffic. • Improve the cycle route network and safety of footpaths and cycle paths in Billingshurst and with the surrounding communities, to include secure cycle storage areas. • Residential and commercial travel plans to emphasise transport choices and reduce dependence on the private car. • A possible car club to reduce car ownership levels. • Investigate the closure of the New Road/A29 junction and realign into new North- Eastern Relief Road. • A financial contribution towards speed management at Coolham Crossroads and the Buck Barn Crossroads grade-separated junction scheme. • A possible financial contribution towards improving road safety on the A29 in Pulborough to the south (to mitigate traffic impact).

9. Land as an extension to Pulborough

Potential site lies on the west side of the A29. Site has a direct link with the strategic road network. Pulborough has a mainline station, but pedestrian and cycle links to it are poor. Pedestrian/cycle access to the local school and other community facilities are also poor, particularly adjacent to the A29 between Stane Street Close and New Place Road due to narrow footways. This is especially difficult across the A29 railway bridge for mobility scooters and buggies. Improved footway provision along the A29, including a new pedestrian footbridge adjacent to the railway bridge, is a main village priority. However, in addition, an alternative ‘off-road’ cycle route to the station should be investigated on the west side of the railway line to Church Place. The A283 Lower Street also suffers from poor pedestrian provision and road safety enhancements in the shopping centre area is also a priority.

• A significant contribution towards the provision of a new pedestrian footbridge on the west side of the A29 London Road across the railway line and the widening of the existing footway southwards to New Place Road. • Investigate the provision of new ‘off-road’ pedestrian/cycle links to Pulborough station to the west of the railway line. • A contribution towards road safety improvements in the Lower Street shopping area. • A contribution towards improving DDA access at Pulborough station in association with the new rail franchisee’s station travel plan. • A contribution towards speed reducing measures on residential roads which may be subject to increased short-cutting by development generated traffic. • New bus stops, shelters and real-time passenger information