Mid Sussex facing even higher future housebuilding requirement

Sweeping changes to the planning system would leave West Sussex having to build an extra 2,234 homes each year.
Boris Johnson at a building site last week promoting the government's new planning reforms (Photo by Phil Noble - WPA Pool/Getty Images)Boris Johnson at a building site last week promoting the government's new planning reforms (Photo by Phil Noble - WPA Pool/Getty Images)
Boris Johnson at a building site last week promoting the government's new planning reforms (Photo by Phil Noble - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

Councils across the county are currently trawling through the details of the government’s ‘planning for the future’ White Paper as well as preparing their responses for a second consultation on changes to planning policy and regulations.

Those changes include altering the way housing figures are calculated – replacing the current local housing need with local housing requirements, essentially adding 300,000 homes per year to the nationwide figures.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Figures from planning and development consultancy Lichfields show how the changes would affect West Sussex councils.

Mid Sussex District Council’s housing requirement would rise from 1,114 to 1,305 a year.

Its current local plan target is 964 with a delivery average over the last three years of 760.

The White Paper has been described as ‘vague, damaging and ineffectual’ by The Campaign to Protect Rural England – Sussex.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The charity warned the proposals ‘could hand thousands of acres of rural Sussex over to developers who will be able to build without going through the planning process’.

Meanwhile writing this week, the Rt Revd Dr Martin Warner, Bishop of Chichester, argued that the drive to build new houses is something to be welcomed, but not at any price.

He said: “We need good new neighbourhoods, not just lots of new houses.”

He felt these neighbourhoods not only had to contribute to a reduction in our carbon footprint, but also develop their own character of diversity and have architecture that makes a statement about dignity and human achievement.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The White Paper divides land into three categories – growth, renewal and protected.

In growth areas, outline permission would be automatically given for developments specified in a council’s local plan; renewal areas would be seen as suitable for some development; and protected areas would see development restricted.

Councils would also be able to set aside land in ‘growth’ areas for self-built and custom-built homes.

The proposed changes brought a mixed reaction from West Sussex councillors.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Jonathan Ash-Edwards, leader of Mid Sussex District Council, said there were a number of points in the White Paper ‘which can be clearly welcomed’.

One was the replacement of Section 106 contributions and the Community Infrastructure Levy – both of which are paid by developers and go towards things such as education, libraries and roads.

Mr Ash-Edwards said the proposed new fixed, value-based Infrastructure Levy could stop developers from challenging what they had to pay on viability grounds.

He added: “While the focus of these changes is on the planning system, this is only part of the picture for housing delivery.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

“Full reform also needs to consider the role that landowners and developers play in making harder the delivery of well-designed, affordable homes with good infrastructure.”

Alison Bennett, leader of the Liberal Democrats on Mid Sussex District Council, had fears about affordable housing.

Pointing out that the changes would ‘reduce the number of affordable homes being built’, she added: “These proposals are an attack on local democracy and will deny people the chance to have their say on local development.”

The proposed changes will provoke plenty of debate in the corridors of Westminster over the next few months.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Andrew Griffith, MP for Arundel and South Downs which includes parts of Horsham, Chichester, Mid Sussex and Arun districts, said: “There are some welcome initiatives such as the focus on building upon brownfield land, a locally set design code for new dwellings, better energy efficient standards and requirement to enhance bio-diversity.

“Post Covid, I want to see us building ‘up not out’ – attractive homes in existing towns and cities and converting the vast amount of now unused offices to dwellings in those areas where the infrastructure already exists - not developments on the unspoilt green fields of West Sussex such as those proposed at Mayfields, Adversane and West Grinstead that would only be accessible by motor car.”

Horsham MP Jeremy Quin, who represents Ardingly and Balcombe, said: “People need homes and Government has a vital role in ensuring these are built and available to support both home ownership and the rental sector. How we do this as a nation in a proportionate and appropriate way is hugely important.

“I am going through the proposals in detail. I have already engaged with HDC and will be addressing the substance of the proposed reforms with colleagues. I would encourage everyone with a view on this important issue to engage in the consultation.”

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

A message from the Editor, Gary Shipton:

In order for us to continue to provide high quality and trusted local news, I am asking you to please purchase a copy of our newspapers.

With the coronavirus lockdown having a major impact on many of our local valued advertisers - and consequently the advertising that we receive - we are more reliant than ever on you helping us to provide you with news and information by buying a copy of our newspapers.

Our journalists are highly trained and our content is independently regulated by IPSO to some of the most rigorous standards in the world. But being your eyes and ears comes at a price. So we need your support more than ever to buy our newspapers during this crisis.

Stay safe, and best wishes.

Related topics: