Response to consultation on MSDC pre-submission draft District Plan July 2015 & accompanying documents
Formal Response to MSDC draft District Plan –
pre submission Consultation July 2015
Name …………………..
Address
……………………………………….
………………………………………
…………………………………….
Postcode:RH19 …..
E-mail: ……………………..
Date23 July 2015
My objections relate to:
District Plan / YES / Sustainability Appraisal / YES / Habitats Regulations Assessment / YESObjection to the Pre-submission MSDC District Plan - June 2015
I wish to object to the draft District Plan, Sustainability Appraisal and Habitats Regulations Assessment because they are NOT SOUND.
The plan has not been positively prepared, it is not justified by up-to-date and appropriate evidence, it is not effective and it is not consistent with national policy [NPPF 182] or the EU Habitats Directive.
My detailed reasons are set out below and later I set out the modifications that I propose to make the plan sound.
I support the position set out by the East Grinstead PRC and the detailed modifications that they call for to the plan etc. I would like to be represented by them at the public examination of the District Plan.
Reasons why the Plan is NOT sound:
1.The plan is not based on up-to-date evidence, particularly relating to major constraints at East Grinstead. [NPPF Para 158]
2.The consultation process has been flawed. In particular the Council has not kept residents properly informed e.g. it has not had an up-to-date Local Development Scheme timetable so residents have not been able to engage fully in the consultation.
3.New policies and evidence introduced at the last stage. The amount of housing to be delivered across the district was not known at the earlier consultation and the proposed distribution between settlements was not set out - the Settlement Hierarchy. The Settlement Hierarchy is inappropriate and fails to take account of up-to-date evidence of the major constraints at East Grinstead. The late introduction of such important matters means that the residents have not been able to engage with the development of the plan properly. [NPPF 155]
4.The District Plan is not sufficiently flexible. The plan relies on the timely delivery of the strategic locations at Burgess Hill. If these are not delivered on schedule or cannot be delivered, then the Settlement Hierarchy (Policy DP6) would mean that the Council would look to make up any shortfall, primarily at Haywards Heath or East Grinstead. However, the major constraints at East Grinstead mean that significant development cannot be accommodated there. Indeed the reason for the delay in producing this new ‘local plan’is because the previous Core Strategy, which relied on delivering major development at East Grinstead [based on the West Sussex Structure Plan Strategic Location Policy LOC1], had to be abandoned, due to the impossibility of delivering the East Grinstead Strategic Location.
To be flexible the District Plan should include/identify contingency site(s) to accommodate any major shortfall with the proposed Burgess Hill Strategic Locations - either abutting Crawley (e.g. Crabbet Park or Pease Pottage) or a new settlement (e.g. at Sayers Common); which have been shown to be sustainable alternatives. Since many of the new houses planned for Mid Sussex are to provide homes for new workers to support economic development at Crawley/Gatwick, these homes should be located as close as possible to Crawley/Gatwick to reduce the need to travel by car.
These points have been made in earlier representations to the Council, throughout the development of the East Grinstead Area Action Plan, the Core Strategy, the withdrawn District Plan (2011-2031), and again to the first draft of this plan, but these representations have been ignored.
5.Infrastructure Constraint at East Grinstead. The Mid Sussex Local Plan (2004) notes that development at East Grinstead must be restrained because of major constraints, until these constraints can be resolved [Chapter 12.5-12.7]. It says that around 179 homes could be accommodated over the plan period. In practice some 1,700 homes or so have been constructed with at least a further 600 in the planning system. The Infrastructure Delivery Programme shows that there are no transport interventions proposed at East Grinstead to provide traffic relief to allow any additional development. This is clearly illustrated in the up-to-date and comprehensive Jubb Consulting traffic studies (Nov 2014/March 2015), which the Highways Authority (WSCC) have accepted as evidence when considering planning policy development.
The evidence base provided for the draft District Plan does not include and fails to take account of the numerous traffic studies carried out, in and around East Grinstead; especially by consultants Atkins or the recently published JUBB report (December 2014/March 2015).
These show that there are very limited possibilities for offsetting additional traffic caused by new homes in East Grinstead –especially when most new residents will need to commute by car.
I support the position that the East Grinstead Town Council adopted at their meeting of April 2012 which agreed:
▪To set a ceiling (cap) on growth of 765 homes (existing commitments and allocated sites);
▪That junction improvements must be implemented to ensure that the impact on the A22 junctions is acceptable; and
▪That any further development would require significant up-front planning and investment in new transport infrastructure, and may therefore be undeliverable. This might also generate traffic and have wider network implications
I understand that this position is shared by West Sussex County Council, the Highways Authority.
The District Plan fails to provide for the infrastructure and traffic relief already identified by MSDC as essential to support any additional development at East Grinstead.
6.By removing all current policies setting out thewell established major constraints on development at East Grinstead, the draft plan opens up the possibility of over-development that would be unsustainable and would damage the social, economic and environment balance –this is not a sustainable plan. The draft plan must recognise these practical constraints.
7.It fails to plan for new jobs at East Grinstead–it plans only a maximum of 200 according to the Mid Sussex Transport Study. The A264 from East Grinstead to Crawley, especially at the Duke’s Head roundabout and at Junction 10 of M23, is already ‘at capacity’and cannot absorb additional car traffic. Commuters will be forced to rat-run down the village lanes around Crawley Down, Turners Hill, Snow Hill and Copthorne. These roads are unsuitable for such traffic.
8.The draft Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA) is flawed and a new HRA is required:
The Habitats Regulations Assessment is not fit for purpose because it does not discharge the requirements of the UK Habitats Regulations (including Regulation 61):
a.The draft HRA does not demonstrate that it has assessed the full amount of housing that MSDC are planning within the 7km zone of influence, ‘alone’. And does not show that the potential impact of housing in neighbouring areas (e.g. in Wealden) have been assessed ‘in combination’as is required.
b.The proposed SANGS site at Ashplats Wood does not meet the bespoke criteria for SANGS for mitigating effects on Ashdown Forest SPA developed for Wealden District Council. Turning Ashplats Wood into a SANGS as proposed would also lead to serious damage to the Ancient Woodland/SNCI.
c.The Mid Sussex Transport Study (MSTS) that the HRA relies on is (i) out-of-date (ii) does not consider the full number of homes proposed under the District Plan.
d.The traffic figures taken by MSDC from the MSTS only take account of the effect of additional development that is expected under Neighbourhood Plans and does not take account of traffic increases due to ‘committed’development. As a result the HRA wrongly concludes that the impact of increased traffic due to development on atmospheric pollution would not be significant.
9.The Sustainability Appraisal and Settlement Hierarchy are flawed.
The Sustainability Appraisal and Settlement Hierarchy fail to take account of new evidence showing the extent of the major constraints on development at East Grinstead and so are flawed.
10.The draft District Plan fails to provide an effective mechanism to measure, monitor or manage development, environmental protection measures and infrastructure delivery. Many of the measures proposed to monitor the delivery and effectiveness of the plan are superficial and seem to have been selected purely because they are easy to monitor.
The draft District Plan:
▪Has not been properly consulted on
▪Is not justified
▪Is not based on up-to-date and appropriate evidence
▪Is not coherent, or effective
▪Is not consistent with national policy of the EU Habitats Directive.
For the reasons set out above I consider that the draft District Plan and accompanying draft Habitats Regulations Assessment and draft Sustainability Appraisal are NOT SOUND [NPPF Para 182] and must be modified.
Below I set out the actions I am asking to be taken:
Unless the modifications set out below are made to the plan, it is NOT SOUND and should be withdrawn, so that the flaws can be corrected and a new consultation should take place.
The modifications that I wish to see made to the plan are:
To make the current draft District Plan sound the following modifications are needed:
1.Add an additional policy specifically to reflect the major infrastructure and environmental constraints at East Grinstead, already established through earlier plans, examinations and new evidence. This should:
a.Include the whole of Chapter 12 on East Grinstead from the current Local Plan until this can be replaced through an adopted East Grinstead Neighbourhood Plan. (Including the supporting text which the Local Plan says carries equal weight to the policies themselves), and
b.Include the 'Development Principles' established in 2004, and re-affirmed in 2009, that set out the essential requirements for infrastructure (including effective traffic relief) needed for further development at East Grinstead: Appendix B to Policy LOC1 of the West Sussex Structure Plan.
2.Modifications to the Settlement Hierarchy & Policy DP6
- Modify the Settlement Hierarchy Review background paper and the Policy DP6 to reflect the constraints at East Grinstead, previously established, but recently reconfirmed by new evidence (such as the Jubb traffic reports, listed below). As a result, East Grinstead should be removed from the Category 1 Settlement status equal to Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath and put into a separate sub-category to ensure that the major constraints are recognised.
3.Policy DP 15 Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA) and Special Area of Conservation (SAC).
a.Policy DP15 needs to be significantly strengthened to protect the ‘SAC’(Special Area of Conservation) from increased atmospheric pollution.
b.Further environmental studies to establish what levels of air pollution would result from proposed development within 7km of Ashdown Forest and MSDC’s proposed mitigation measures are needed. MSDC should work jointly with Wealden District Council (WDC) on this.
c.The current Mid Sussex Transport Study [MSTS] is out-of-date and only appears to assess 159 additional houses, grossly underestimating the cumulative number proposed within the 7km buffer zone under the Mid Sussex Local Development Framework. An up-to-date study is needed to take account of the homes within the zone of influence already in the planning system and all those to be allowed under the District Plan.
d.The MTRU (for the East Grinstead PRC) report shows that the level of development already tested in the MSTS study would lead to more than 1000AADT increase in traffic and so mitigation measures are already needed to meet Regulation 61 of the Habitats Regulations. The policy needs to be modified to ensure that development is limited until this issue is resolved and the evidence being collected by WDC is available.
e.The proposed SANGS at Ashplats Wood will not provide necessary mitigation and an alternative site is needed. In assessing the suitability of a new SANGS site MSDC should adopt the bespoke Ashdown Forest SANGS guidelines produced by Footprint Ecology for Wealden District Council
f.There are not yet any SAMM measures agreed or in place. DP15 should restrict further development within the 7km zone until these measures are in place.
g.The draft District Plan does not provide for effective measurement or monitoring of the effectiveness of proposed mitigation measures. These need to be included.
4.Policy DP 18: Securing Infrastructure
a.This policy needs to recognise the infrastructure constraints at East Grinstead and also that the Infrastructure Delivery Programme does not include any further transport measures to facilitate any further significant development at East Grinstead.
5.Policy DP 19: Transport
a.This policy needs to recognise the severe traffic congestion and transport infrastructure shortfalls at East Grinstead and recognise that these will limit development there until solutions are identified, funded and delivered.
6.Contingency. The District Plan needs an additional policy to identify ‘contingency’sites in the event of failing to deliver sufficient housing at Burgess Hill or through the Neighbourhood Plans. (NB This principle was accepted by the Council its abandoned Core Strategy which allocated Crabbet Park as a contingency)
7.Modifications to the Sustainability Appraisal. The 'Sustainability Appraisal'needs to be modified toreflect theevidence that shows that major development cannot be delivered at East Grinstead and to provide a contingency in the event that the Strategic Locations at Burgess Hill cannot be delivered.
8.Modifications to the Habitats Regulations Assessment [HRA]. There needs to be a new Habitats Regulations:
a.To take account of the full quantum of development already permitted within the 7km zone of influence plus a sufficient number to provide sufficient headroom for any additional development that might be required under the District Plan in combination with development in other planning authority areas.
b.Based on up-to-date evidence from a new transport study to take account of the proposed quantum of development [see 8a above].
c.Modified to take account of the SANGS guidelines specifically developed to avoid/mitigate against disturbance effects to Ashdown Forest developed for Wealden District Council by Footprint Ecology, that are supported by Natural England and were tested and found sound at Examination.
d.Modified so as not to rely on the proposed SANGS at Ashplats Wood that does not meet SANGS criteria and does not have the capacity suggested in the MSDC supporting evidence.
9.The following Evidence must be added to the evidence base (available via link )
a.Bespoke guidelines for Ashdown Forest SANGS developed by Footprint Ecology [see 8c above]
- JUBB Consulting & Atkins East Grinstead traffic reports:
- Jubb - East Grinstead & Surrounds Nov 2014 Survey and Review of Traffic Conditions.
ii.Jubb Supplementary Report March 2015 [to East Grinstead and Surrounds Survey and Review of Traffic Conditions].
- Atkins report - East Grinstead Traffic Management Study Stage 3 [M May 2012]
- MTRU Report: Transport and New Development at East Grinstead [April 2012]
- MTRU: New Housing Development and its impact on Ashdown Forest
- The ‘Development Principles’for major development at East Grinstead set out in Appendix B of the West Sussex Structure Plan Policy LOC1.
The above documents can be found at:
Bearing in mind the poor consultation with residents hitherto, I wish to be kept informed of the next stages of the process (including when the plan is submitted to the Planning Inspectorate/Secretary of State).
Please notify me –
▪When the Plan has been submitted to the Secretary of State for Examination
▪When the Examination is to be held
▪Of any additional consultations imposed by the Inspector
▪When the recommendations of the Inspector are published and when the District Plan will come to Council to be adopted
▪Or if the plan is found unsound what process and timetable the Council will follow.
E-mail to:
Planning Policy Division, MSDC, Oaklands Road, Haywards Heath RH16 1SS
MSDC should acknowledge your objection.
If they do not, please e-mail us at:
1/7