Questions submitted by members of the public in writing by noon on the previous working day (for a period up to 15 minutes).
Minutes:
Question from Mrs Sandie Moore, Lynchmere Parish Council (LPC).
LPC and residents local to this site have serious reservations about the transparency of the process in this consultation and quality of the consideration given to evidence put in to it by them and their independent experts. There is little confidence that their evidence and the responses of statutory consultees has been presented or considered fairly. What does the Council propose to do to restore our residents’ faith in the planning authority?
Response from Mrs S Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services)
The Council takes seriously all comments made in response to public consultation on the Site Allocation Development Plan Document. I would like to point out that all representations made during the initial consultation in early 2016 and the further consultation last summer were reported directly to the Cabinet and Council as they were appended to the reports. The Cabinet and Council were therefore aware of all comments made and I believe that they were both presented and considered fairly and in an open and transparent way. This included comments from the site promoter as well as the representations made by residents and the Parish Council.
With respect to the stage of consultation that has just taken place, all representations will be forwarded to the Planning Inspectorate on submission of the Site Allocation DPD where they will be considered as part of the examination of the plan.
However, since these representations were submitted there has been further work undertaken which has given greater certainty that the site is capable of being developed in compliance with polices in the Local Plan and National Planning Policy Framework and I will refer briefly to this in the context of the issues raised by the parish council.
Flood Risk - Fluvial and Groundwater:
Following a review of the flood risk assessment work carried out by the promoter of the site, the Environment Agency has confirmed that, although its flood zone remodelling is incomplete, there is sufficient information to indicate that development can occur on the site outside of Flood Zone 3. Although there may be some design issues to be addressed in the construction of the access to the site, there is nothing to indicate from a fluvial flood risk point that the site cannot be developed in principle.
In addition, West Sussex County Council as Lead Local Flood Authority has confirmed that with an appropriate site layout the risk of groundwater flooding to the proposed development is considered low. On this basis, the Lead Local Flood Authority considers that there is sufficient evidence to satisfy the Exception test and to comply with paragraph 102 of the NPPF and that there is no impediment, solely on flood risk grounds, why the site cannot be allocated. Importantly, this includes not increasing flood risk elsewhere.
An officer from West Sussex County Council has visited the site and there is no change to its position.
Highways and Access:
Officers have consulted West Sussex County Council as highway authority, specifically requesting information on access in light of appeal decisions which residents have referred to. The County Council has confirmed that since 2003 there have been significant changes to both national planning policy and highway infrastructure design guidance. In summary the County Council as Local Highway Authority does not object to the principle of 10 dwellings at this location.
Thames Water has indicated that subject to some amendments to the wording of the policy (included within proposed modifications) it considers the plan to be sound.
Settlement Boundary:
The Settlement Boundary is proposed to be amended to take account of the proposed allocation. This is in accordance with the methodology and applies to all sites in the DPD, not just Sturt Avenue. At the time of the further consultation last summer none of the sites proposed to be allocated were within the settlement boundary. At the proposed submission consultation stage all sites proposed to be allocated were included within the amended settlement boundary. If the allocation is removed as part of the examination into the plan it would also be removed from the settlement boundary.
In summary all of the representations and consultation responses in relation to this site have been assessed carefully by officers at the different stages of the process and reported to members for consideration in accordance with the Council’s usual procedures for preparing a development plan document. The site is considered suitable in principle for the development of 10 houses. I should stress that the process of allocating a site in a local plan or development plan document is to establish in principle that a suitable form of development can be located on a particular site, using a proportionate evidence base.
All relevant Local Plan policies will apply to detailed proposals for development.
Due to the issues raised as part of the previous consultation, more work has been undertaken to further investigate those issues and I have explained the position above. Members now have more information available to them with respect to fluvial and groundwater flood risk and highways and access. This additional information further confirms that the site is suitable in principle for development and can therefore be allocated within the Site Allocation DPD.
Mrs Moore stated that she had spoken to a Thames Water Planning Officer that morning who had stated that they were still in discussion with the developers and with council officers and that there was nothing they had seen which would indicate that the site was safe on access and water pollution grounds and that their present stance remained that the site was unsound. She asked a supplementary question:
“In the light of all the evidence from Lynchmere Parish Council, local residents and Haslemere Town Council on their concerns and experiences about flooding, groundwater, environmental, highways and access issues and their collective view that the process has been unsound can the Council really be confident that housing on this particular site can safely delivered by any developer, if not shouldn’t it be the responsible decision of the Council that it should remain unallocated.”
The Chairman advised that this question would be covered under agenda item 11.