Andrew Griffith MP has warned that Horsham District Council’s Local Plan is “not sound”, arguing that the late inclusion of a proposed 3,200-home new town at Adversane has fundamentally changed the plan that residents were previously consulted on.
In his formal response to Horsham District Council’s Main Modifications consultation, the MP says the proposal for the Kingswood development at Adversane raises serious questions over both the process by which it was introduced and whether the infrastructure needed to support it can actually be delivered.
The proposed development could ultimately accommodate around 10,000 residents – making it larger than Henfield and more than twice the size of neighbouring West Chiltington.
Mr Griffith said: “At no point in the earlier stages of the Local Plan process was the prospect of an entirely new town on a greenfield site at Adversane included. Its late introduction has effectively delivered a different Local Plan from the one on which residents were consulted.
“This is not simply a question of whether we need more homes. It is whether this is the right place for a development of this scale and whether the necessary infrastructure can realistically be delivered. On the evidence available, I do not believe it can.”
The MP points to his own survey of local residents, which received 893 responses, with 98% opposing development of this scale. He contrasts this with the absence of any equivalent survey by Horsham District Council.
A particular concern is the suggestion that a new railway station could serve the development. Mr Griffith submitted a Freedom of Information request asking what discussions Horsham District Council had held with Network Rail about a new station. The Council confirmed in its response that there had been no meetings with Network Rail and no information was held relating to such discussions.
The submission also questions whether a proposed railway bridge providing access to the site can be delivered, given its scale, cost, land requirements and proximity to existing homes. Without such a crossing, the submission argues, the site would not be deliverable.
There are also concerns over the capacity of the surrounding road network, with the B2133 lacking footpaths and already being used by horse-riders, while additional traffic would place further pressure on the A29 through Pulborough.
Flooding and water supply are also highlighted as major concerns. The submission points out that Pulborough already experiences significant flooding and argues that building on green fields which currently act as natural water storage could increase flood risk downstream.
On water supply, the submission calculates that 3,200 homes, even using the Local Plan’s proposed limit of 110 litres per person per day, would require around an additional 1 million litres of water every day. It argues that there is no evidence that sufficient additional supply has been secured, particularly given existing pressures on the local water environment particularly at Hardham which abstracts water from the River Arun.
Mr Griffith also raises concerns about the availability of electricity grid capacity, pointing to the decade long timescales for new grid connections of this scale which he says are not uncommon when planning requirements are considered. This, he says, again brings into question the deliverability and soundness of this plan and the costs and timeframes involved to make connections to the energy grid.
The MP warns that the proposed provision of new healthcare and education facilties raises the question about the delivery and the ability to recruit sufficient GPs and teachers, and whether proposed schools could be properly funded and staffed without the risk of shortfalls which falls back on the local authority and taxpayers.
He argues that these issues demonstrate why the Council should have properly assessed alternative locations and brownfield opportunities before adding Adversane to the plan.
The MP has stressed that his objection is not to development in principle stating his support for organic-scale development of towns and villages to provide homes for local families, and says he has not opposed most other sites in the draft Horsham Local Plan.
Instead, he is calling on Horsham District Council to reconsider whether a new settlement of this scale in this location represents a sustainable and deliverable strategy.
Concluding his submission, Mr Griffith says the Council’s approach does not meet the test of a sound Local Plan under Paragraph 35 of the National Planning Policy Framework, which requires plans to represent an appropriate strategy, take account of reasonable alternatives and be based on proportionate evidence.
