Horsham District Local Plan (HDLP) update

The latest indications from HDC (source HDC website) are that the draft HDLP (known as the Regulation 19 document) will be published by HDC Planning in early December 2023 with a recommendation to the HDC Cabinet and Council (at their meeting on 11th December) for public consultation during January and February 2024. The meetings on 11th December will be held in public and broadcast live on YouTube. Save Rural Southwater will attend and request to speak at the meetings.

Following the consultation period the Regulation 19 draft will be reviewed in the light of comments received and reissued in June 2024 for review by an independent government appointed inspector for examination and further consideration in public hearings scheduled for October 2024. There will be further consultation on main modifications with the report of the inspector due in the Spring of 2025 and adoption of the new HDLP shortly thereafter. This timetable is provisional and may be subject to change.

SRS will continue to monitor this process and advise of any changes in the timetable.

Water Neutrality – a leaking lifeboat - the facts and the fiction.

The problem

We are living in the most over-stressed water supply zone in the country. It’s called the Sussex North Water Resource Zone (SNWRZ) and is served by Southern Water (SW). The area extends from Crawley through Horsham, Pulborough, Arundel to Chichester. (View large Sussex North Water Resource Zone map here) This serious problem is largely due to mass housebuilding across our region over recent decades, which massively increased demand on the finite water supply available to be drawn at Hardham, near Pulborough.

The solution

The lack of water supply was recognised by the Government’s Environment Agency (EA) and Natural England (NE) and other stakeholders, including Southern Water and the affected District Councils. So, Natural England developed the policy of “water neutrality” and robustly and unambiguously defined what this means;

“The definition of water neutrality is the use of water in the supply area before the development is the same or lower after the development is in place”

To meet the water neutrality test any development on rural land, which will inevitably introduce very significant new water demand ,will need to show that it can match (or better) this new demand through offset savings on existing buildings.

In September 2021, NE published guidance on how this unique policy should be implemented within SNWRZ.

The guidance

Their guidance advises on how new building developments can demonstrate compliance with the water neutrality requirement. Developers have to show both significant water efficiency in new-build properties through a combination of water flow restriction, use of grey water and/or rainwater harvesting, and offsetting by reducing water use in already built properties through retro-fitting of water flow restriction devices.

The fiction

The Natural England guidance sets a target for water use ‘per person per day’ (pppd) of 85 litres for new builds. This target figure is not based on any actual use data from properties fitted with flow restriction devices, but rather on aspirational and theoretical calculations prepared mainly by water consultants and suppliers in the water industry who have financial motivations in promoting their goods and services.

The reality

A target consumption of 85 litres pppd is:

1. far below Southern Water’s actual average daily water consumption of 136 pppd, based on their customers’ metered usage;

2. far below national average use data from the water industry of 146 litres pppd;

3. far below the Building Regulations Part C target consumption figures for new builds of 110 litres pppd;

4. far below the actual data of 166 Iitres pppd collected in a pilot scheme conducted in Crawley on behalf of Crawley, Horsham and Chichester District councils (within the SNWRZ area), where 100 Council properties were retrofitted with flow restriction devices.

The manipulation

What is now happening, of course, is that developers are submitting applications based on the Natural England target of 85 litres pppd but are not being required to prove that this vastly lower consumption will ever be achieved. They merely have to show that, in theory, it could be. Recently submitted development applications reveal that, to meet the theoretical 85 litres target, the developer’s calculations simply reduce the number of baths to be taken, showers taken and shower duration, and WC flushes to well below the actual average use data. The lower the theoretical water use target, the easier it is for the developer to “demonstrate” water neutrality, so this unrealistically low NE target is a gift for developers. The developer’s theoretical calculations are not tested, unless there is an obvious mathematical error.

To illustrate this fictitious and fundamentally flawed approach, a newbuild development application based on the Natural England 85 litres target, which was recently approved by Natural England and Horsham District Council, included the following water use calculations (all pppd);

Baths – 14 litres. This would mean roughly 2 ½ inches of water in a standard sized bath. A normal bath, half-filled, will use 80-100 litres so this daily allowance would permit one decent bath every 6/7 days. Survey data collected by the Energy Saving Trust (EST) on actual bath use showed that consumers in the Thames water region took a bath 4/5 times a week.

.

Showers – the developer limited shower use time to 4.37 minutes per day. The Energy Saving Trust actual use survey revealed an average duration of around 7 ½ minutes per shower.

WC flushing – the developer limited WC flushing to 4 ½ times per day - around half the national average.

External water use (e.g. Garden/Car washing/Pressure washing) - the developer allowed 5 litres pppd. A car wash using a hose will use around 250 litres and very recent research from SW shows that a hose used for watering/garden sprinkler can use up to 1000 litres per hour.

Another application recently approved by Horsham District Council provides an even starker example of this absurd manipulation. The application was for permission for the erection of 6 3-bed dwellings in Rusper. To satisfy water neutrality requirements, the applicant proposed to offset against the additional water demand from the new properties by retrofitting 8 basin taps in the washrooms of a commercial office building in Horsham with low-flow taps.

The application claimed, and Horsham District Council Planning appears to have accepted without question, that this would reduce total water consumption per person per day to 4.97 litres. This consumption approximates to 1 wc flush without any tap use per person per day.

Actual water use data obtained for the building based on metred billing over a 3 year period revealed an average total daily water use of around 1900 litres or 31.66 litres per person per day based on the occupancy figure accepted and used by the Horsham Planning department. So the application was accepted and approved on the basis that for the very modest cost of fitting 8 new sink taps,water consumption pppd would reduce from 31.66 litres pppd to 4.97 litres pppd. Simply incredible!

Turning a blind eye

Natural England has abdicated all responsibility for monitoring actual water usage in new builds for comparison with its totally hypothetical target figure. It has stated that enforcement is the remit of local planning authorities. But the idea of enforcement is meaningless since people are entitled to use, and will use, as much water as they want and cannot be, and nor should they be, “penalised” for consuming above the unrealistic 85 litres target.

Horsham District Council made it clear, in agreeing the first development application mentioned above, that it will not monitor actual water usage, either. This is hardly surprising, given that actual use data would clearly explode the myth of achieving 85 litres pppd (based on the previous studies of actual water use) and of the water neutrality of the application approved by the Council.. This would be a very inconvenient truth for Natural England and Local Planning Authorities. This “blind eye” approach, and the lack of any actual use monitoring, will inevitably encourage and result in the removal of water flow restriction devices by home owner/occupiers further exacerbating the problem. This is already happening in many new build developments where devices have been fitted.

So where does that leave us - the residents, present and future, of the SNWRZ?

Natural England’s target of 85 litres pppd completely flies in the face of easily available actual daily pppd data. Although the Local Planning Authority is the decision maker on any particular development application, NE is positively promoting, and endorsing applications based on this figure, so it is unsurprising that Local Planning Authorities will support this approach, as Horsham District Council is doing. Save Rural Southwater has contacted both NE and HDC seeking clarification of the evidence relied upon in setting the NE 85 litres target and the only actual use data we have been referred to is the Energy Saving Trust technical study and the Crawley Pilot scheme, neither of which get anywhere close to supporting the NE target and in fact clearly contradict it.

If, as the available actual use data indicates, the 85 litres pppd target is unachievable in practice, then the outcome for our area, the SNWRZ, is that many development applications will be approved which are not, and have no chance of being, water neutral. This will mean even more pressure on the already hugely overstressed water supply in the SNWRZ.

Remember what happened in May 2023? Over 20,000 homes were without water for a number of days - a stark reminder of how vulnerable our water supply is already, even without further large-scale development.

We shouldn’t forget that the above points apply equally to offsetting by retrofit, which will exacerbate the problem in many developments where retrofitting is relied on by the developer, such as those mentioned above recently approved by Horsham District Council.

Water neutrality is a sensible and necessary concept, and is robustly defined by NE in their guidance. If applied in practice, it would greatly help address the SNWRZ water supply problem. The stark reality, however, is that the concept is fundamentally flawed in its design and implementation - through sole reliance on aspirational and theoretical assumptions which ignore the available evidence of actual water use and water use behaviour.

The lifeboat of water neutrality, which could have played such an important role in protecting our finite water resources, until long term and sustainable water supply arrangements have been put in place and proved, is well and truly holed below the waterline.

Objection to 'The Copse' Development, Southwater, submitted to Horsham District Council

Application no. DC/23/1350

Filed on behalf of Stammerham Amenity Association and Save Rural Southwater

Executive Summary

For the reasons set out in more detail in the paragraphs which follow, Stammerham

Amenity Association (“SAA”) and Save Rural Southwater (“SRS”) respectfully submit that

HDC Planning Committee should refuse the application no. DC/23/1350 submitted by

Starbuild Ltd in relation to the land at The Copse, Worthing Road, Horsham RH13 9AT

(i) the application does not satisfy the relevant Horsham District Planning Framework

2015 requirements, in particular, amongst others, those contained in Policy 25 and Policy

26, which are a precondition to approval, and

(ii) the application conflicts with the current 2019 Southwater Neighbourhood Plan (2019-

2031), and

(iii) the application contains no adequate demonstration of water neutrality

On each of these grounds individually, and collectively, it is respectfully submitted the

application should be refused.

1. Statement of interest

The Stammerham Amenity Association (“SAA”) is a local residents group which was

established nearly 40 years ago, to help protect the rural quality of life in Tower Hill, Two

Mile Ash, Christ’s Hospital and Denne Park. The object of the Association is to maintain and

manage a forum for the discussion of matters of local interest, to consult with the Parish,

District and County Councils on matters regarding any future plans for the area and to put

forward a consensus opinion to the aforesaid authorities wherever appropriate.

Save Rural Southwater (“SRS”) is an informal group of local Southwater Parish and adjacent

residents whose interest in this proposal is to support and ensure the robust application of

the LDPF and Southwater NP Policies.

The SAA/SRS representation is, therefore, made by and on behalf of interested parties who

will be directly or indirectly, and adversely, affected by the proposed development.

2. The Starbuild Application

The proposed development for 33 dwellings and a 76 bed care home ((NB there is

conflicting information in the application documents on the actual no. of houses and care

home beds) is on derelict residential curtilage and grassland to the north of Southwater

village.

The proposed development land falls outside the Southwater built up area boundary (BUAB)

and the Horsham BUAB as delineated in the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015

(HDPF 2015) meaning Countryside Policies apply. While outside the two BUABs this land

falls within the area covered by the Southwater Neighbourhood plan (NP) meaning the

application must comply with the NP. Notwithstanding that the update to the HDPF Local

plan 2015 is overdue, the policies contained in that plan remain relevant considerations in

the context of the present application. Furthermore, the Southwater neighbourhood plan

2019-31 (“SNP”) is not as the applicants assert out of date and its policies remain relevant to

the present application. On the matter of the NPPF para 14 protections it is a matter of very

serious concern to the submitting associations that the Senior HDC Planning Officer who

dealt with the pre-app specifically advised the applicants to defer submission of this

application until after the second anniversary of the “making” of the SNP to enable the

applicants to seek advantage from the “tilted balance”.

3. Weight of the current (and emerging) District Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan

The review of the 2015 HDPF is overdue. For reasons which are sensible and well-known,

namely uncertainty on government housing targets and subsequently the issue of water

neutrality, the review commenced in 2018 was put on hold in 2021. It is understood that

work is in hand on an updated review with a view to publication of the Regulation 19

Document for consideration and consultation in the near/relatively near future.

Until the emerging HDPF has been duly processed and approved, the policies contained in

the current HDPF remain in force and must be taken as the applicable policies against which

the proposed development is to be judged. Notwithstanding any presumption in favour of

sustainable development in the absence of a five year housing land supply (currently HDC

only has a four-year supply), developers such as Starbuild should not be able to impose

their own visions and plans for local development on District Councils and local

communities who have not had the proper and prescribed opportunity to object to (or

support) the emerging HDPF and who have already voted in favour of the current Made

Southwater Neighbourhood plan (a plan which will need to be reviewed and possibly “re-

made” once the updated HDPF is published). To allow this speculative opportunism would

constitute a fundamental infringement of the rights of the individuals in the communities

affected and of proper democratic process. It is for district councils and parish councils to

determine, in consultation with the residents and communities they represent, and in

accordance with national, District and Parish policy, the local housing and facilities needs

and requirements. This is the very reasoning why the Conservative/LibDem coalition

Government legislated for devolution of local planning powers and in particular developed

and promoted the now widely adopted concept of the NP.

The 2015 HDPF remains in force, the Southwater (2019-2031) neighbourhood plan (NP)

remains in force, and in terms of what might be considered “presumptions of sustainable

development” there can be no objective assessment of “sustainability” unless the proper

and constitutional consultation process has been undertaken and objections (of which there

were many to the draft review abandoned in 2021) properly considered and addressed as

appropriate. Consequently the comments below assess the proposed development against

the current District Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.

The 2019-2031 Southwater Neighbourhood Plan (“SNP”) is the most recent local plan, is

current and its content should be supported and respected. What would be the point of

requiring parish councils to spend six-figure sums preparing such plans, if they can be

“ridden roughshod over” by speculative developers.

It is unclear why HDC does not have a current five-year housing land supply, or why

housebuilding in the already hugely overdeveloped district has been 147% percent of the

government target requirement over the last three monitoring years. It is assumed this is a voluntary assumption of extra housing which begs the question why this been accepted by

HDC. But for this overdevelopment might there have been a five-year housing land supply?

NPPF – presumption in favour of sustainable development

The Starbuild application relies on the presumption in favour of sustainable development

(NPPF para 11 (d)) which applies where local policies are out of date and/or no five-year

housing land supply can be demonstrated.

This presumption may however be displaced where a proposed development conflicts with

a neighbourhood plan and the adverse impacts of applying the presumption in favour would

significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. In the context of

this application, the very substantial and significant conflict with the Neighbourhood plan

will very clearly outweigh whatever limited benefits the proposed development might

promise to deliver.

In light of this NPPF provision, it is submitted that the Starbuild application should not be

entitled to rely on any presumption in favour of their proposed development.

4. Grounds for objection

SAA/SRS strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds, amongst others, that

it disregards and/or offends against established policies on development set out in the

current district and neighbourhood plans and demonstrably fails to satisfy the water

neutrality criteria.

4.1 HDPF 2015 – Strategic Policy considerations (all paragraph references below are to

paragraphs/strategic policies/chapters set out in the plan)

SP4 – Settlement expansion

The proposed development falls outside the Built-Up Area Boundary identified in the 2015

HDPF.

SP4.2 – Scale and Function

The level of expansion of the village of Southwater envisaged under the proposal is not

appropriate to the current scale and function of the Village as required under this policy.

The proposed expansion will further elongate the existing nuclear village centred around

Lintot Square, the Parish Church and the community sports fields into a very long multi-

centre ribbon development thereby further fracturing the existing community nucleus.

Southwater has already become one of the longest “ribbon villages” in the county and in the

country which is a strong reason for opposing the further elongation envisaged by the

proposed development.

SP4.5 – Maintaining and enhancing landscape features

The proposed development is not contained within an existing defensible boundary and will

not maintain and/or enhance the landscape character features of the rural location and the

rural land on which it will be built.

SP10.1 Rural Economic Development

The proposed development is located on what was substantially historically productive

rural/farm land which for many hundreds of years had been used for arable and livestock

grazing. The development will not contribute to sustainable farming enterprises or to the

wider rural economy. In fact, it will have precisely the opposite effect.

SP15 – Housing provision

The land west of Southwater is identified in the district plan as a strategic site for around

600 homes within the period to 2031. Since HDPF 2015 was adopted, development

permission has already been granted for 594 homes of which roughly half have been

completed and the remainder are under construction or are to be constructed. The proposal

for 33 dwellings and a residential care home is on land not previously identified in HDPF

2015 or in the SNP 2021

SP-17 Exceptions Housing Schemes

The proposed Starbuild development meets none of the requirements of the policy in

relation to sites in rural areas near existing settlements

SD10 – Southwater Strategic site.

The proposed development falls outside the Strategic site identified in policy SD10.

Chapter 9 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural and Built Environment (Water quality)

There are already significant capacity issues with the existing local wastewater treatment

facilities. The proposed development would significantly increase the demand for

wastewater treatment and disposal. This aspect has not been adequately addressed in the

proposal.

Policy 24 – Environmental protection

The proposed development will add significantly to pollutant emissions, noise air and light

pollution on the proposed site where currently no such pollution factors exist.

Policy 25 – District Character and Natural Environment

Para 9.18 expressly recognises that the undeveloped nature of rural areas must be

protected. The proposed Starbuild development is located in a rural area outside the HDPF

2015 and SNP 2021 BUABs.

The proposed development entails carpeting rural land which is home to a wide variety of

wildlife species, a number of which are protected, with a substantial care home ( with

associated parking facilities, houses, roads, and potentially retail space and totally fails to

meet any of the applicable criteria set out in Policy 25. In particular it does not, and simply

cannot:

“protect, conserve and enhance the rural land on which the development is proposed” (per

requirement 1),

“Maintain and protect green infrastructure” (per requirement 2),

“Maintain and enhance biodiversity, safeguard existing species or provide net gains in

biodiversity” (per requirement 3).

Policy 26 – Countryside protection

The opening paragraph of the Policy reads;

“Outside built-up area boundaries, the rural character and undeveloped nature of the

countryside will be protected against inappropriate development. Any proposal must be

essential to its countryside location, and in addition meet one of the following criteria:”

The “essential” requirement is a precondition which must be met by any proposal and the

present proposal falls very far short of evidencing that it is “essential”.

Policy 26 goes on to stipulate that to be considered acceptable “development must not lead

to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside, and it must protect

and/or conserve and/or enhance the key features and characteristics of the landscape

character area in which it is located, including”

“…the areas ecological qualities…the pattern of woodlands and fields, hedgerows, trees,

waterbodies…”

The proposed development demonstrably fails these tests on all counts.

Policy 27 – Settlement Coalescence

The proposed development will lead to significant further coalescence between the

village of Southwater and the town of Horsham and will generate urbanising effects

including new roads, development along road corridors and a not insignificant increase in

road movements contrary to Policy 27.

Policy 31 – Biodiversity

Policy 31 seeks to ensure no biodiversity loss. The proposed development is located on

rural/farm land and adjacent to woodlands, hedges and treelines, currently home to a wide

variety of wildlife, aquatic life, bird life, flora and fauna. Species include deer, foxes, rabbits,

hedgehogs, herons, wild duck and geese, moorhens, birds of prey, rooks, nesting birds, bats,

and great crested newts, frogs and other amphibians, ancient woodlands, trees and

hedgerows. The loss of this habitat to development will render it largely if not entirely

devoid of all such irreplaceable biodiversity.

4.2 Southwater NP 2019-2031 – Core Principles considerations (All paragraph references

below are to paragraphs/strategic policies/chapters set out in the Southwater

neighbourhood Plan 2019-2031)

SNP1.1.b - The proposed development falls outside the Built Up Area Boundary identified in

the SNP

SNP2.2 - The proposed development offends the core principle that only the land west of

Southwater is allocated for the provision of 422-450 new residential units.

SNP4. - The proposed development offends the core principle of “keeping our roads

moving”. It will increase the number of vehicle entering and leaving the proposed site and

lead to an increase congestion on the B2237 in the vicinity of the Hop Oast Roundabout.

4.3 “Water Neutrality”

Southwater is within what has been identified as the most water supply stressed area in the

country, and that is before the additional demand from developments already approved

and under construction in the district comes on line. The proposed development is sited

exclusively on unoccupied land which currently has no, or negligible, water demand.

The applicants WN statement commits to achieving a target pppd water consumption of 85

litres, recognising that the average for the supply zone is 135 litres pppd. The calculation

submitted and relied on in the statement is entirely hypothetical. It assumes occupants will

flush toilets roughly half as many times per day as the national average, will have a daily

bath roughly 2 inches deep or a half full bath once every 7/8 days, will not shower for more

than 4 ½ minutes in total per day and will rarely wash their car/s.

THE PATENT FALLACY OF THIS APPROACH IS THAT BY RANDOMLY MANIPULATING WATER USE ALLOWANCES ACROSS DAILY TASKS, THE DEVELOPER CAN PUT FORWARD UNACHIEVEABLY LOW TARGET CONSUMPTION FIGURES WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT

THESE TARGETS WILL BE MET IN PRACTICE. IN THIS APPLICATION THE FIGURES PUT

FORWARD ARE;

(i) FAR BELOW THE ACTUAL AVERAGE USE DATA (PER SOUTHERN WATER), AND

(ii) FAR BELOW THE BUILDING REGS PART G TARGET CONSUMPTION FIGURES,

AND

(iii) FAR BELOW THE CRAWLEY PILOT SCHEME ON REDUCING WATER

CONSUMPTION THROUGH THE USE OF FLOW RESTRICTORS WHICH WAS

JOINTLY COMMISSIONED BY HDC.

There is no incentive for developers to put forward realistic experience based consumption

figures based on properties already constructed and fitted with water saving devices since

this would make it much more difficult or impossible for them to demonstrate (as the NE

requirement stipulates) water neutrality.

FOR ALL THE DEVELOPERS THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, PEOPLE WILL USE WHATEVER

AMOUNT OF WATER THEY WANT, IF RESTRICTORS ARE FITTED IT WILL JUST TAKE LONGER TO FILL THEIR BATHS, SINKS, BASINS AND WC CISTERNS OR WASH THEIR CAR/S. THERE IS NO PROPOSAL BY THE APPLICANTS TO MONITOR ACTUAL WATER USE IN THE PROPERTIES AND HDC, WHICH IS THE AUTHORITY TASKED BY NATURAL ENGLAND WITH POLICING AND ENFORCING WATER CONSUMPTION TARGETS SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPERS, MADE IT CLEAR IN THE RECENT WOODFORDS APPLICATION DECISION (DC/21/ 2180) THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION OF MONITORING ACTUAL WATER USE IN DEVELOPMENTS THEY APPROVE BASED ON DEVELOPERS PROPOSED WATER USE TARGETS. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL FLAW IN THE APPLICATION OF THE VERY CLEAR OBJECTIVE OF WATER NEUTRALITY. WHAT COUNTS, IF WATER NEUTRALITY IS TO BE ACHIEVED, IS ACTUAL, NOT PURELY THEORETICAL, WATER USE.

And what is to stop the occupiers from removing the flow restrictors which we understand

is a simple plumbing task, and commonplace we understand in recently completed

developments in the district.

The application does not even get close to demonstrating as required by NE water neutrality

compliance.

5. Summary

The Starbuild proposed application has the undesirable and dangerous potential to usurp

the fundamental and crucial roles of the District Council and Parish Council to objectively

consider, consult upon and set realistic and sustainable local development targets.

There is no demonstration of water neutrality, far from it the pppd consumption targets are

purely hypothetical and totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever of achievability in

practice. Furthermore there will be no monitoring, no penalty and no enforcement when

actual use, as it inevitably will, exceeds the target use submitted by the applicant and

accepted by HDC.

For the above reasons, amongst many others, outlined in the Executive Summary and in the

paragraphs above, it is submitted that the application should be refused.