REF NO: Office Use Only

ARUN LOCAL PLAN (2011-2031) PUBLICATION VERSION, POLICIES MAPS

AND SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL

REPRESENTATION FORM Please return your completed representation form to Arun District Council by 5pm on 11th December 2014 This form has two parts: PART A - Personal Details. By law, representations cannot be made anonymously. All representations will be published alongside your name, company name (if applicable), and your client’s name/company (if applicable). If you submit a representation, your contact details will be used to notify you of the subsequent stages, including the Examination in Public (EIP) PART B – Your Representation. Please fill in a separate sheet for each representation you wish to make. You may submit multiple “PART B” sections with a single “PART A” completed. Please use separate sheets for each representation, you may photocopy Part B of this form as many times as necessary. If you wish to make a number of representations you may find it more convenient to register and use the Arun consultation portal (Objective). To access the Arun consultation portal, or download further copies of this form, then this can be done through the Council’s website at www.arun.gov.uk/localplan. A guidance note to explain what this consultation is about is attached to this form. Individual guidance notes on completing your representation are included in Part B of the response form.

PART A - Personal Details: (you only need to complete Part A once) It is not possible for the Council to consider anonymous representations Please ensure that you complete all fields in 1. If an agent is appointed please enter the Title, Name, Organisation in 1, and complete the full contact details for the agent in 2.

1. Personal details 2.Agent details Title Mr First Name Paul Last Name Collins BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Organisation Aldingbourne, Eastergate,

Barnham and Walberton Parish Councils

Associate Planner Strutt and Parker LLP

Address Line 1 201 High Street Address Line 2 Lewes Town/City East Sussex Postcode BN7 2NR Telephone 01273 407076 Email paul.collins@struttandparker.com

Preferred contact : Email √ Letter No further contact You are responding in your role as a (please tick):

Resident Local Business Local Organisation

Landowner/Agent Developer Town/Parish Council √ Councillor

Statutory Body Other

Age Group: Under 18 18-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-64

65-74 75-85 over 85 prefer not to say √ Gender: Male Female prefer not to say √ How did you hear about this consultation?

Letter/Email √ Leaflet/Poster Arun DC website Newspaper Radio Other (please specify) Data Protection Act 1998 The personal information you provide as part of a representation will only be used by Arun District Council for the purpose of preparing local plan documents. Your contact details and age will not be made public. However your name and representation

Agent acting for the Parish Councils

cannot be treated as confidential as the Council is obliged to make all representations available for public inspection.

PART B - Your Representation: Guidance Notes 1. Please tick the document that you would like to make a representation on:

• Arun submission Local Plan √ • Arun submission Policies Map √ • Arun submission Sustainability Appraisal √

Please use question 1 to identify which submission document of the local plan that your representation refers to.

2. Your Responses: Which part of the Local Plan does this representation relate to?

• The whole Plan

• All of Section 12 (Housing Delivery)

• Policy: HSP1 (Strategic housing, parish and town council allocations)

• Other: ……Housing Policy generally…………...

Policies Map: Map 1 (District), the Six Villages & Surrounding Area)

Please use question 2 to identify the exact part of the local plan that your representation refers to. If you are commenting on the Policies Map please state exactly which part of the map your representation relates to.

3. Do you consider the Plan is:

a) Legally compliant?

Yes No √ b) Sound?

Yes No √

c) Compliant with the Duty to Cooperate?

Yes No √

Please use question 3 to indicate whether you consider the Local Plan is sound, legally compliant and meets the requirements with regard to the Duty to Cooperate. If your comments or objections relate to the way the local plan has been prepared it is likely that your representation relates to a matter of legal compliance. Please read the separate Guidance Note for guidance on legal compliance. If your comments or objections relate to the content of the local plan it is likely that your representation relates to the ‘soundness’ of the local plan or the plan’s compliance with the Duty to Cooperate. Please read the separate Guidance Note for guidance on ‘soundness’ and compliance

with the Duty to Cooperate. It is recommended that you read the Sustainability Report which accompanies the Local Plan. The Sustainability Report appraises the policies in the Local Plan to ensure they reflect social, environmental and economic factors.

4. If you consider the plan to be unsound, please specify your reasons below by ticking the box(es) that apply. √ It has not been positively prepared √ It is not justified √ It is not effective √ It is not consistent with national

policy

Please use question 4 to specify why you consider the Local Plan to be unsound. ALL representations on matters of soundness will be considered by the Inspector. To be sound the Local Plan should be:

Positively prepared - the plan should be based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed housing development and employment land requirements and the infrastructure and services needed to support it. In addition Arun may be required to meet the housing needs of neighbouring authorities where they are unable to, where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development

Justified - the plan is the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence

Effective - the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities

Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and Planning Practice Guidance

5. a) Please give specific details of why you consider the

Please use question 5 to record any details necessary to support your arguments as

plan has not met legal or procedural requirements, or to be unsound, or why it has not been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as specific as possible. See Attached Statement.

indicated in questions 3 and 4. Please note as there will not normally be another opportunity to add further information or to make further representations, so please include all the information and evidence necessary to support/justify your representation. After this stage of consultation, further submissions will only be invited at the request of the Planning Inspector, based on the matters and issues the Inspector identifies for examination. Your answer should describe all the information, evidence and supporting documentation you are relying on to justify your representation. The Local planning authority is required to provide a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) Report when they publish the Local Plan. The SA Report should identify the process by which the sustainability appraisal has been carried out, and the baseline information used to inform the process of preparing the Local Plan and the outcomes of the policies. Comments on the SA report are not confined to just ‘soundness’ issues; you can express your opinion on the SA report and use it as a reference point on the ‘soundness’ of the plan. If required, please continue your response on an additional sheet of paper and securely attach it to this response.

6. Please set out the modifications you consider necessary to resolve the issues you have identified

If you think that the Local Plan is not legally compliant, or is unsound, or has not been

above. Please explain why this modification will make the local plan sound and legally compliant. It will be helpful if you are able to put forward your suggested revised wording of any policy or text. Please be as clear as possible. In view of the legal compliance, Duty to co operate and soundness issues raised and the e mail exchange copied and attached to these submissions the respondents submit that : • The Draft Arun Local Plan is not legally

compliant or sound and is not, therefore, ready for examination at the date of this Regulation 19 notification

• The LPA has no intention to formally or

publicly consider any of the representations made under this Regulation 19 notification prior to submitting the plan under Regulation 22 to the Planning Inspectorate in January 2015

• The LPA has no intention of considering or

making any changes/modifications to the plan prior to submission as a result of any representations made at this Regulation 19 stage

• The LPA has no intention of reconsidering

the stated position regarding the Housing delivery and Implementation aspects of the Plan prior to submission under regulation 22

These facts are yet another example of the Councils’ lack of clarity when approaching public engagement and consultation throughout the Local Plan preparation process. The Councils highlighted guidance note at the end of this Representation Form states: “After the consultation period has ended the authority will summarise the main issues and submit that summary to the Secretary of State alongside the Local Plan and supporting evidence. If any representations include matters which suggest changes to the Local Plan the Authority will consider the appropriate way to proceed before the Local Plan is submitted”. Therefore the Inspector is asked to consider whether or not the Council should be advised to

prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate and you think it could be changed to address this, please give details in response to question 6. You should support your comments with evidence showing why the plans should be changed. It will be helpful if you could also say precisely how the policies should be changed. Comments should succinctly cover all of the evidence and supporting information necessary to support or justify the comment and suggested change. Any non-compliance with the duty to cooperate is incapable of modification at examination. If required, please continue your response on an additional sheet of paper and securely attach it to this response.

withdraw the Submission Plan (when submitted) so that legally compliant and effective consultation can be undertaken and the choices made in any future submission plan can then be made on the basis of proper and legally compliant consultation processes, a finalised duty to co – operate process and an up to date, complete and more accurate evidence base. 7. Have you raised the matter you refer to in questions 5 & 6 at an earlier stage in the consultation process for the Local Plan?

No √ If NO, briefly explain why you did not do so. The only formal consultation undertaken in respect of this DPD was that undertaken in July – September 2012 and that Consultation provided no opportunity to raise the matters as it related to a fully prepared Draft Plan with a predetermined Vision, objectives, Housing delivery and implementation strategy which were not derived from or based on earlier or legally compliant consultation or an evidence base that was publicaly available at that date. Further the current Publication Version of the Local Plan contains a vision, objectives, a Housing delivery and implementation strategy that are in any case very different from that earlier version and is underpinned by an evidence base that has been prepared (but not consulted upon) since 2012 and this is the first formal opportunity that the respondents have had in the process to formally comment on same.

The Council has already considered representations from previous consultations and revised the Local Plan as appropriate.

8. If your representation is seeking a change to the local plan, do you consider it necessary to attend and give evidence at the hearing part of the examination? (please tick the appropriate box): √ Yes, we wish to participate in the examination hearings. Please answer question 9.

The Local Plan will undergo a public examination after this stage of consultation. Please indicate whether you would like to participate in the public examination in question 8. If your answer is NO, your representation will be considered by the Inspector by way of this written representation.

9. If you wish to participate in the hearing part of the examination, please outline why you consider this to be necessary. The detail of issues raised needs to be tested and examined by further written and oral evidence.

Please give reasons on why you would like to participate in the public examination. The inspector will determine the most appropriate procedure to adopt to hear those who have indicated that they wish to

participate at the hearing part of the examination.

10. If you wish to meet with Arun District to discuss your representation to identify whether your concern can be resolved prior to Examination in Public, please tick this box √ The Council has advised that it has no intention of considering any representations made at this Regulation 19 stage before submitting the Plan for examination but the respondents remain willing to meet and discuss the issues raised.

Arun District Council would prefer to address any concerns regarding the Local Plan prior to the Examination in Public. Requests for meetings with officers of the Planning Policy and Conservation Team are welcomed. Meetings will be based upon the key matters raised by the representation form and will only focus upon those matters that concern legal compliance, soundness and compliance with the Duty to Cooperate. If the box is ticked, a meeting will be considered based upon the matters raised in the representation made. If it is considered appropriate, a member of the Planning Policy and Conservation Team will make contact to arrange a meeting.

Signature Date

8th December 2014

This is the end of the representations form. Please complete Part B of this form for each representation you wish to make and attach it to Part A of this form ‘Your Details’. Please return your completed form to either the address below Local Plan Representations, Planning Policy Team, Arun Civic Centre, Maltravers Road, Littlehampton, West Sussex BN17 5LF Or by email to localplan@arun.gov.uk Alternatively you can complete a form online at www.arun.gov.uk/localplan Deadline for return of your form is 5pm Thursday 11 December 2014 If you require this document in large print, please contact the Planning Policy and Conservation Team via phone on:

• 01903 737500 Or by email: LocalPlan@arun.gov.uk

This form is the only means by which representations will be accepted; however you can complete either a paper copy of this form, an electronic copy of this form on our website at www.arun.gov.uk/localplan or access our consultation portal (Objective) from our web page. Arun Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Publication Version. Consultation: Representations Guidance Note

A. What is this Consultation about? The Arun Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Publication Version, Policies Maps and Sustainability Appraisal sets out a vision to 2031 along with development management policies against which planning decisions will be made.

The Arun Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Publication Version, Policies Maps and Sustainability Appraisal have been published for public comment prior to submission to the Secretary of State. This is to allow for representations on the in regard to matters of legal and procedural compliance, “soundness”, and conformity with the “Duty to Cooperate. This is prescribed in the Planning Regulations (2012)

The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 can be viewed at http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2012/767/introduction/made Your representations will be considered by an independent Planning Inspector at a future Examination in Public. The Arun Local Plan 2011 – 2031 Publication Version builds on a series of evidence gathering and consultation exercises from 2009 to 2013. Background information is available at www.arun.gov.uk/localplan or can be inspected on request at the Council’s offices during normal office hours. The consultation period is from 30th October 2014 to 5pm 11th December 2014

B. What is legal compliance for the preparation of the Local Plan? If you are seeking to make representations on the way in which the authority prepared the Local Plan, it is likely that your comments or objections will relate to a matter of legal compliance. The Planning Inspector will first check that the Plan meets the legal requirements of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 (amended by the Localism Act 2011) and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning England Regulations 2012), before moving on to the tests of soundness. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 can be viewed at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/5/contents The Localism Act 2011can be viewed at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enacted

You should consider the following before making a representation on legal compliance: Local Development Scheme Preparation of the Local Plan should be in accordance with the current Local Development Scheme (LDS). The Arun Local Development Scheme is available at: http://www.arun.gov.uk/main.cfm?type=LOCALDEVELOPMENTSC Statement of Community Involvement The process of public engagement for the Local Plan should be in general accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which is available at http://www.arun.gov.uk/main.cfm?type=STATEMENTOFCOMMUNI Town and Country Planning (Local Planning (England) Regulations 2012 The Plan should comply with the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012. This includes public participation in the preparation of the Local Plan (Regulation 18) and publication of the Publication version of the Local Plan (Regulation 19).

C. What is the test of soundness?

The Local Plan is considered sound when it has been:

• Positively prepared – the plan should be prepared based on a strategy which seeks to meet objectively assessed development and infrastructure requirements, including unmet requirements from neighbouring authorities where it is reasonable to do so and consistent with achieving sustainable development;

• Justified – the plan should be the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence;

• Effective – the plan should be deliverable over its period and based on effective joint working on cross-boundary strategic priorities; and

• Consistent with national policy – the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework.

For further detail, refer to paragraph 182 of the National Planning Policy Framework (2012)

http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/

D. Duty to Cooperate In addition the Authority is expected to have followed the new ‘Duty to Co-operate in relation to planning sustainable development’ as set out in Section 110 of the Localism Act 2011 available at: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enacted

Sustainability Appraisal Authorities are required to publish a Sustainability Appraisal (SA) report when publishing the Local Plan. The SA Report should identify the process by which the sustainability appraisal has been carried out. The SA process is designed to test the Local Plan by looking at social, economic and environmental criteria to ensure meaningful progress is made towards a sustainable way of living. The Sustainability Appraisal (SA) report and a non-technical summary are available on our website at www.arun.gov.uk/localplan National Planning Policy The Local Plan should have regard to national planning policy. The National Planning Policy Framework (2012) is available at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/policy/ And the Planning Practice Guidance (2014) at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/ Community Strategy The Local Plan should have regard to any sustainable community strategy for its area. The Arun Sustainable Community Strategy is available at: http://www.arun.gov.uk/main.cfm?type=OURKINDOFPLACE1 What happens after you have made your representation? After the consultation period has ended the authority will summarise the main issues and submit that summary to the Secretary of State alongside the Local Plan and supporting evidence. If any representations include matters which suggest changes to the Local Plan the Authority will consider the appropriate way to proceed before the Local Plan is submitted. The Local Plan is expected to be heard at a public examination during spring/summer 2015 in line with the Local Development Scheme. If the Inspector considers that substantive issues are raised he/she may request that you attend the hearing. If the document is considered ‘sound’ by the Inspector it is anticipated that the authority will consider adopting the Local Plan in autumn/winter 2015. (The dates for the Examination in Public and adoption of the Local Plan are subject to the Planning Inspectorate’s programme and hearing processes).

From: Simon Meecham [mailto:Simon.Meecham@arun.gov.uk] Sent: 04 December 2014 13:38 To: Paul Collins Cc: Karl Roberts; Planning Policy; Neil Crowther Subject: RE: Draft Arun District Local Plan  Dear Mr Collins,   We have nothing further to add to our last email.  Regards,   Simon  From: Paul Collins [mailto:Paul.Collins@struttandparker.com] Sent: 04 December 2014 12:44 To: Simon Meecham Cc: Karl Roberts; Planning Policy Subject: RE: Draft Arun District Local Plan  Dear Mr Meecham  Thank you for your response and the clarification provided.  In view of your response I will advise my clients and their legal advisor  that:  

• the  LPA has  rigorously assessed the Plan before it was published under regulation 19 and that they think it is sound and ready for examination  

• the LPA has no intention to formally or publically  consider any of the representations made under Reg 19 prior to submitting the plan under Regulation 22 to the Planning Inspectorate  

• the LPA has no intention of considering making any changes/modifications to the plan prior to submission as a result of any representations made at Reg 19 stage 

• the Council’s position regarding the housing land supply and housing Trajectory remains as set out in the publication version documents approved by Full Council on the 5th November and that these will not be changed prior to submission under regulation 22 

 Perhaps you could let me know if any of these facts are incorrect.  Regards  Paul Collins  Paul Collins BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Associate Planner South East Development Team Strutt and Parker LLP  

From: Simon Meecham [mailto:Simon.Meecham@arun.gov.uk] Sent: 04 December 2014 11:58 To: Paul Collins Cc: Karl Roberts; Planning Policy Subject: RE: Draft Arun District Local Plan  Dear Mr Collins,   Thank you for your questions.  Yes it is the intention to submit the Local Plan in January.  Full Council authorised the submission of the Local Plan at the 10th of September 2014 meeting.  Therefore a further report is not required to action this.      The Plan as published sets out the OAN and ‘policy on’ approach to our housing requirement and HLS.  We are however aware that national revisions to demographics or other matters may influence the starting points for Local Plans between preparation and EiP. Any such change will be a matter for the appointed Inspector in consideration of Arun’s Plan, the submitted representations and any changes nationally.  Regards,   On behalf of Karl Roberts   From: Paul Collins [mailto:Paul.Collins@struttandparker.com] Sent: 03 December 2014 13:35 To: Karl Roberts Cc: Simon Meecham Subject: Re: Draft Arun District Local Plan Importance: High   Dear Karl/Simon  I act for Eastergate, Barnham, Aldingbourne and Walberton Parish Councils in this matter.  I am instructed to formulate and make representations regarding the publication version of a local plan within the published timescales of the current Regulation 19 process.  My Clients are also taking legal advice regarding the validity of the local plan preparation process to date.  In complying with my instructions, I have noted that all representations under the Regulation 19  process must be sent by 11th December 2014 and that the Councils published Local Development Scheme 2014 – 2017 states that the Draft Local Plan will be submitted with those representations in January 2015.  

  I also note that the publication version of the Local Plan clearly states that the Council is seeking to meet its objectively assessed housing needs in full through the Plan and that the Council currently has or can demonstrate a five year housing land supply and that the housing Trajectory set out in the Plan demonstrates that this five year land supply is achievable throughout the lifetime of the Plan.  However, I also note that on 28 November 2014 the Council changed its calendar of meetings so that  the Local Plan Sub‐Committee is not scheduled to meet again (following its meeting on 18 December 2014) until February 2015, that the meeting scheduled for 18 December 2014 has no item regarding the respo9nse to the Reg 19 process on the published agenda  and that the Council has no scheduled Local Plan Sub Committee meetings scheduled beyond February 2015 prior to the  elections in May 2015.  In view of the foregoing please can you confirm as a matter of urgency that it is still the Council’s intention to submit the Draft Arun District Local Plan to the Secretary of State in January 2015 in accordance with the Local Development Scheme and if not when such a submission is now to take place and that the Council’s position regarding the housing land supply and housing Trajectory remains as set out in the publication version documents approved by Full Council on the 5th November or alternatively whether or not Officers intend recommend that the Council review this aspect prior to submission.  I would appreciate a speedy response given the closing date for representations on the 11th December.  Your sincerely  Paul Collins BA (Hons) DipTP MRTPI Associate Planner South East Development Team Strutt and Parker LLP  This Email is confidential and may contain legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient it may be unlawful for you to read, copy, distribute, disclose or otherwise make use of the information herein. If you have received this Email in error please contact us immediately. Strutt and Parker will accept no liability for the mis‐transmission, interference, or interception of any Email and you are reminded that Email is not a secure method of communication.  Strutt & Parker LLP is a limited liability partnership and is registered in England and Wales with registered number OC334522. A List of members’ names is open to inspection at our registered office.  For further details of Strutt & Parker LLP please visit our web site http://www.struttandparker.com<http://www.struttandparker.com/>

RESPONDENTS’ STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF

QUESTION 5 ON THE REPRESENTATION FORM

Question 5 (a) Please give specific details of why you consider the plan has not met legal or procedural requirements, or to be unsound, or why it has not been prepared in accordance with the Duty to Cooperate. Please be as specific as possible.

This Statement responds to this question as guided by Arun District Council.

Legal and Procedural Compliance – DPD Preparation

The Planning Advisory Service published a “Local Plan Legal Compliance Checklist”

in April 2013 which was designed to provide Local Planning Authorities with a self

assessment checklist against which they could assess the degree to which their

Development Plan Documents (DPDs) met relevant legal requirements regarding

preparation and this has been used by the respondents to guide their

representations in this case.

The Pas Checklist makes it clear that the preparation of a Local Plan is a statutory

process which should be conducted as governed by legislation and regulations and

that these require specified formal consultation at key stages in the process for each

and every DPD under preparation to be carried out in accordance with published

Local Development Schemes.

The general aim of the relevant legislation and regulations is to ensure that public

and stakeholder engagement specified in Local Development Schemes is “front

loaded” alongside the preparation of a proportionate evidence base. This is so each

formal consultation stage is clearly identified in terms of its purpose and status

relative to the legal procedures and the evidence base so that those consulted can

make informed representations as part of those formal consultation processes and

can be aware and informed of how the process is proceeding.

The PAS Guidance is clear in saying that the start point for the preparation of any

DPD is a published Local Development Scheme and a consultation under Regulation

18 of The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) England Regulations 2012.

Regulation 18 replaced Regulation 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Local

Development) (England) Regulations 2004 which were superseded on 6 April 2012.

Regulation 25 of the 2004 Regulations read as follows: Pre-submission consultation

25.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2), before a local planning authority comply with regulation 26 they must consult– (a) each of the specific consultation bodies to the extent that the local planning authority thinks that the proposed subject matter of the DPD affects the body; and (b) such of the general consultation bodies as the local planning authority considerappropriate. (2) If the document is the local planning authority’s statement of community involvement, the requirement referred to in paragraph (1)(a) is satisfied — (a) by an authority whose area is in a region other than London, if the authority consult— (i) the regional planning body; (ii) each relevant authority any part of whose area is in or adjoins the area of the local planning authority; and (iii) the Highways Agency; (b) by a London borough council, if they consult— (i) the Mayor of London; (ii) each relevant authority any part of whose area is in or adjoins the area of the local planning authority; and (iii) the Highways Agency. Preparation of a local plan 18.—(1) A local planning authority must— (a) notify each of the bodies or persons specified in paragraph (2) of the subject of a local plan which the local planning authority propose to prepare, and (b) invite each of them to make representations to the local planning authority about what a local plan with that subject ought to contain. (2) The bodies or persons referred to in paragraph (1) are— (a) such of the specific consultation bodies as the local planning authority consider may have an interest in the subject of the proposed local plan; (b) such of the general consultation bodies as the local planning authority consider appropriate; and (c) such residents or other persons carrying on business in the local planning authority’s area from which the local planning authority consider it appropriate to invite representations. 12 (3) In preparing the local plan, the local planning authority must take into account any representation made to them in response to invitations under paragraph (1).

These are materially different and specify materially different formal consultation

requirements. Regulation 25 relates to Pre Submission consultation whereas

Regulation 18 relates to the preparation of a Local Plan so that Regulation 25

required consultation on a prepared Local Plan prior to submission whereas

Regulation 18 requires consultation prior to the plan being prepared.

Regrettably, the Council’s Regulation 22 “Statement of Consultation” (Regulation 22

The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) England Regulations 2012)

published on 30 October 2014 is a long and complex document which requires the

reader to go on a lengthy paper chase so as to verify the assertions it makes

regarding compliance with Regulation 18 of The Town and Country Planning (Local

Planning) England Regulations 2012.

The document seeks to reinterpret consultation processes and historical events in

respect of earlier Local Development Schemes and earlier/different DPD preparation

processes in an effort to demonstrate that the current Publication version Local Plan

DPD has been prepared in a way that is compliant with the current Town and

Country Planning (Local Planning) England Regulations 2012 which came into force

on 6 April 2012 (as guided by the PAS Checklist) but this “retrofit” account does not

bear scrutiny when the required paper chase is undertaken.

The relevant facts (distilled from the paper chase exercise in respect of the October

2014 “Statement of Consultation” ) set out below make it clear that ADC has not

followed this approach when preparing this DPD with the result that it has not been

prepared in a legally compliant way.

2005 - 2008

• In accordance with The Planning and Compensation Act 2004 (as amended)

the Council commenced work on the preparation of a Core Strategy to replace

the 2003 Arun District Local Plan as then governed by The Town and Country

Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

• A “Core Strategy Issues and Options Consultation” was conducted from 29th

September until 10th November 2005 which the Council states was in

accordance with Regulation 25 of The Town and Country Planning (Local

Development) (England) Regulations 2004.

• In 2008 the Council decided to halt work on that DPD on the basis of legal

advice received so that any Consultation undertaken in its regard could not be

used to satisfy Regulation 25 of the 2004 Regulations in respect of any new

DPD to be prepared.

2009 - 2012

• From 12 February to 2nd April 2009 the Council conducted a “Core Strategy

Options for Growth Consultation” so as to commence the work on the new

Core Strategy it had decided to produce. The status of the Consultation in

terms of the 2004 Regulations is not stated or explained as no reference is

made in the document to the Regulations or more particularly Regulation 25

and it did not relate to a Pre submission DPD.

• The Councils Local Development Scheme dated April 2010 ( Approved by

Full Council in January 2010 i.e after the Consultation had taken place) stated

that the Council was preparing 3 DPDs being: o Core Strategy 2010 – 2026, o Site Allocations and Development Policies DPD and o A Gypsies and Travellers Site DPD

• This LDS stated that the “Core Strategy Options for Growth Consultation” was

undertaken in accordance with Regulation 25 and that a 2004 Regulation 25

consultation on the Council’s Preferred Options for the location of housing

growth would be undertaken in January 2011 and a further 2004 Regulation

25 consultation regarding Site Allocation options in accordance with same in

May 2012 but this process never took place.

• In September 2010 the Local Development Framework Sub committee

considered an Officers report entitled “PROPOSED PROGRAMME AND

ACTIONS FOR THE DELIVERY OF A CORE STRATEGY (LOCAL PLAN)”.

• The purpose of this report given on the agenda was “to agree an approach for

establishing the scale and location of development in Arun for a 17 year

period between 2011 and 2028 through the creation of a Local Plan” and the

following extracts from the report explain the reports purpose in more detail:

“At the last meeting of the LDF Sub Committee members resolved to support 465 units per annum as its interim housing supply figure pending a comprehensive review of this figure as part of developing the emerging Core Strategy or development plan (hereafter called a local plan). This resolution

has been subsequently endorsed by Full Council. The Council now needs to undertake the comprehensive review”.

“The SE Plan was revoked because the new Coalition Government believed that the 'top down' approach to setting the level of housing provision in an area was wrong and has instead promoted a 'localism' or 'bottom up' approach. Such a fundamental change has given this Council the opportunity to set its own scale of growth according to what it and the local community consider necessary to deliver a vision of the type of district they wish to see develop in the period up to 2028.

The purpose therefore of this paper is to consider what the long term level of housing and employment provision should be for Arun for the period up to 2028, having regard to all the available evidence including the opinions of the local community. Having subsequently come to a decision on the level of growth the Council can then use this decision to inform the preparation of a new Local Plan.

This report considers not just housing provision but also employment provision as there is obviously a symbiotic relationship between the two and they represent the topic areas which are likely to give rise to most physical development.

• The minutes of the meeting record the recommendations to Full Council on

13th October 2010 which as a result subsequently resolved to:

• develop and implement a Consultation Strategy in accordance with the

Council’s adopted statement of community involvement which seeks to

include the Parish Council’s engagement and groups who have not

traditionally responded to previous planning consultations.

• Undertake a consultation on the proposed vision of strategic objectives

for the emerging Core Strategy Local Plan and representations on local

policies be invited for inclusion in the Plan.

• Undertake a consultation on four broad scenarios for development

based on annual housing requirement figures of 362, 447, 548, and

628 retrospectively, and a level of employment growth of 111,000

square metres for Class B uses in addition to the provision of

employment at Oldlands Farm.

• Prepare a Core Strategy (Local Plan) for 2011 – 2028

• The revised timetable, (as amended at the meeting) be agreed for the

preparation of a Core Strategy (Local Plan) and the Local Development

Scheme be updated and,

• The Structure of the Core Strategy (Local Plan) be agreed.

• It is therefore clear that in October 2010 the Council decided to halt work on

the 3 DPD documents included in the approved 2010 LDS and start afresh

with the creation of a new single DPD which would include housing

requirements of its choosing rather than those that might have flowed from the

South East Plan 2009 as consulted upon previously.

• It is also noteworthy that the resolution to undertake “a consultation on the

proposed vision of strategic objectives for the emerging Core Strategy Local

Plan and representations on local policies be invited for inclusion in the Plan”

was never implemented and the LDS was not “updated” until January 2012.

• On 15 November 2010 the Council undertook a “Housing and Employment

Growth Consultation” which consulted upon four broad scenarios for

development based on annual housing requirement figures of 362, 447, 548,

and 628 retrospectively, and a level of employment growth of 111,000 square

metres for Class B uses in addition to the provision of employment at

Oldlands Farm in accordance with one of the Full Council resolutions of 13

October 2010.

• The Consultation made no reference to it’s’ status or purpose in terms of the

2004 Regulations and did not include any reference to “a consultation on the

proposed vision of strategic objectives for the emerging Core Strategy Local

Plan and representations on local policies be invited for inclusion in the Plan”

set out in the Full Council resolution of 13 October 2010.

• On 2nd June 2011 the Local Development Framework sub-committee met to

consider a number of Officer Reports and the minutes record the members

response to each of these as follows:

Planning for Growth The Subcommittee received an information report from the Interim Planning Policy Manager which outlined recent Government statements referring to proposals for planning reform to ensure that planning supported sustainable development and growth and that these objectives needed to inform the decisions that local planning authorities were taking. Reference was also made to the New Homes Bonus Scheme introduced by the Government to reward the building of additional housing. Members were advised that the top priority was to promote sustainable economic development and jobs and that the Council must press ahead without delay to promote up to date development plans.

In discussing the matter, comment was made that, under paragraph 1.9, the statement that ‘the Government “has today made clear its expectation that every council should be firmly on the front foot in encouraging and supporting growth” should also include the words “for local needs”. Development should not be considered per se – the key was the requirement for sustainable development which had to include not just housing but economic development as well.

The Subcommittee

RESOLVED That the report outlining the Government’s commitment to growth and proposals for planning reform be noted.

Local Plan – Vision and Strategic Objectives An Officer Report explained that in respect of the resolution from Full Council

on 13 October 2010 that the Council would “Undertake a consultation on the

proposed vision of strategic objectives for the emerging Core Strategy Local

Plan and representations on local policies be invited for inclusion in the Plan”

“Members did not make a formal decision at the time as it was proposed to consult on these at the same time as consulting on the housing and employment growth targets. However, this was not included in the paper and wavelength survey as advice was received that it would complicate the consultation and could reduce the overall response. A question was included in the website questionnaire and responses to this are referred to in the report on the housing employment growth consultation that appears elsewhere on this agenda.

It is now proposed to also consult on these with Town Parish Councils at the same time as we discussed the proposed spatial distribution associated with the preferred housing growth option consultation which we will also be undertaking with the Local Economic Partnership. In addition the vision and strategic objectives will also be subject to formal consultation in early 2012 and they will be included in the Local Plan.”

The minutes record that “the Assistant Director or Planning and Housing Strategy presented this report which referred to the proposed consultation on the vision and strategic objectives that would underpin the Council’s new Local Plan. A correction to the report was made that the Local Plan would run from 2011 to 2028 and not 2026 as stated.

In commencing the debate, the Chairman stated that, in the light of comments made during the consultation process, he was of the view that the strategic objectives listed at the end of the report should be renumbered to reflect the priority the Council placed on having a sound economic base and the need to increase local job opportunities.

Comment was made that consultation must embrace local organisations and the smaller charities and the Assistant Director of Planning and Housing Strategy confirmed that this was done. However, he did point out that some of the smaller groups and charities did not quite see how this part of the planning process was relevant to them and how it impacted on their own objectives and this in turn impacted negatively upon the number of responses received. In returning to the question of the strategic objectives, the Subcommittee agreed that the matters of Arun’s economic base and travel and sustainable transport were central to the Council’s key aims for the District and that these should be placed at the top of the list. In addition, it was felt that any numbering of the objectives should be deleted.

The Subcommittee

RESOLVED That the report be noted, subject to amendment of the strategic objectives as detailed and attached to the Minutes, and the revised consultation arrangements for the vision and strategic objectives be agreed.

• The Local Development Framework Subcommittee on 2 June 2011 did not

therefore agree or endorse the vision and strategic objectives to be included

in a new Local Plan but simply agreed the revised consultation arrangements

for the revision and strategic objectives. In the event however, no further

specific consultation was undertaken on the proposed vision and strategic

objectives and the “preferred housing growth option consultation” mentioned

in the Officers Report never took place.

Housing and Employment Growth Consultation In respect of this report the minutes record that “The Subcommittee received a report from the Assistant Director of Planning and Housing Strategy which informed Members of the results of the Housing and Employment Growth Consultation which took place between 15th November 2010 and 28th February 2011. Analysis was provided of the public consultation responses which were received via survey questionnaire, the Wavelength Panel and letter/email.

Within the consultation document, four scenarios had been used to illustrate a range of options for the public to comment on in respect of the level of housing they wished to see built in the District. The Subcommittee was advised that the overall conclusion of the consultation was that the views of the public had indicated a preference for reducing the scale of housing as set out in the Regional Spatial Strategy. In addition, the public was asked to indicate the level of employment they wished to see and a preference had been indicated that there should be a balancing effect around what housing might come forward.

The Chairman stated that he had enjoyed his involvement with the cluster meetings around the District and he wished at this time to record his thanks for the time and effort put in by planning officers to the consultation exercise, which had at times been over and beyond the call of duty. The work of officers was very much appreciated. Particular mention was also made of the effort put in by Pagham Parish Council to advertise the meeting in its catchment area as the attendance there was particularly high.

The Subcommittee participated in a general discussion which covered such matters as transport; housing for the future in light of publications stating that population numbers were falling and what effect this would have on housing development in the future; and affordable housing. Members then

RESOLVED – That

(1) Members familiarise themselves with the contents of the consultation results, which will inform selecting growth options for housing and employment growth targets; and

(2) The analysis and full summary of all the comments made be published by placing the documents in the appendices to the report on the Arun District Council web site.

 Local Development Framework (LDF) Housing and Employment Growth Consultation – Selecting Growth Options

The minutes record that “The Assistant Director of Planning and Housing Strategy presented this report which was seeking a view on the preferred level of growth from Members should the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS) be revoked. The Council would continue to develop a new Local Plan in the interim based on the current RSS targets. The Town and Parish Councils

would be invited to comment on the expressed preferences for the level of growth should the RSS be revoked. Any final decision would also need to be subject to full assessment through a Sustainability Appraisal process, which would include assessment of reasonable alternatives. The Local Plan would continue to be developed according to the timetable detailed in the report. The Assistant Director of Planning and Housing Strategy reminded Members of the court action taken by Cala Homes against the Secretary of State regarding the status of the Regional Spatial Strategies (RSS). As far as planning matters were concerned these had to a large extent been resolved but a recent judgement stated that Councils should continue to use and abide by the RSS until such time as it was revoked by the Secretary of State. It was acknowledged that the whole issue was complex but Members were being requested to agree that officers continue to prepare a draft Local Plan on the basis that the RSS was still in force but that they could also express a preference for what level of housing they wished to see in the future should the RSS be revoked. It had to be taken as read that the intention of Members could not be implemented until the due process had taken place and the RSS was indeed revoked. This would have an impact on the recommendations to Full Council contained in the report and the Assistant Director of Planning and Housing Strategy put forward an amendment for consideration as follows:- That the Subcommittee recommend to Full Council that the Council should continue to prepare a draft Local Plan in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy. However, Members also recommend to Full Council a preference for an annual housing target of xxx units per annum for the period 2011 to 2028 and a preference for xxx of land for employment growth for the period 2011 to 2028, should the RSS be revoked in the future.

The Subcommittee had to consider the employment land requirement for the District and a range of options for employment. In discussing this matter, the Chairman quoted figures which he felt indicated that housing growth did not equal jobs. However, the Assistant Director of Planning and Housing Strategy pointed out that, firstly, there was danger in comparing two different sources of information and, secondly, housing was something that was required to make the economy work and attract businesses to the area and that there was a need to have a certain degree of movement within the market place. There was an issue of what would be the appropriate level of housing growth to support the economy that Members were looking for.

Furthermore, he highlighted the need for improved infrastructure which could not be paid for out of the public purse and this could only be funded by development. He was of the view that it was not simply a question of employment and housing, there were a range of factors that needed to be taken into consideration.

A comprehensive debate then centred around employment and housing, with the outcome being that Members did not accept the need for high housing numbers. It was felt that there was very strong support for low housing numbers amongst residents and it was the duty of Councillors to listen to their communities. It was felt that standards regarding skill levels should be raised

by way of education, training and apprenticeships, which would attract businesses to the area and in turn increase wage levels. It was not about building more and more housing.

The Subcommittee focussed on the views of the residents of the Arun District and highlighted that the intention of the Localism Bill when it passed through Parliament, was for local councils to work with their communities to decide housing targets.

Residents of Arun had indicated a preference for Option B within the report, i.e. 362 units per annum (6,150) over the Plan period. Advice was given by the Assistant Director of Planning and Housing Strategy that, although Option B was supported by the public, it was not supported by other elements of the evidence base. Prior to debating the preference for housing growth, it was suggested and agreed that the employment land requirement should be determined first. Following consideration, this was agreed at 25.5 hectare of employment land over the period of the Plan based on past completions continuing. It was emphasised that this figure was in addition to the site set aside for employment at Oldlands Farm.

In turning to the preferred housing numbers, a view was expressed by Members that Option C was most appropriate in the circumstances prevalent in Arun. The Assistant Direct of Planning and Housing Strategy pointed out that, in his professional judgement and based on the Council’s current evidence base, any reduction of over 10% in housing numbers would create a significant risk that the Plan developed in the future would be found unsound and therefore, in his opinion, Option D was a better option because, whilst still presenting a risk, that risk would be lower. In respect of Option B, the risks were even greater still.

If the Plan was found to be unsound there would be consequences in having to start the whole process again. He was using the 10% figure based on informal advice received and his own strong advice was that Members needed to be absolutely clear about the risks associated with whatever decision they would be taking.

A response was given at the meeting that if Members genuinely believed that the Localism Bill would allow people to have more say in their communities, then it was right for the Council to take that risk. The views of the local community were part of the evidence base and Members had a responsibility to defend those views. As there was a divergence of opinion regarding Option B and Option C a suggestion was put forward that the difference be split and the housing numbers therefore be set at 400 units per annum. However, as Option C had been proposed and seconded first in the debate, the Chairman put this to the vote and it was declared CARRIED.

The Committee then

RECOMMEND TO FULL COUNCIL – That (1) the Council should continue to prepare a draft Local Plan in general conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy. However, Members also recommend a preference for an annual housing target of 425 units per annum for the period 2011 to 2028 and a preference for 25.5 hectares of land for employment growth for the period 2011 to 2028, should the RSS be revoked in the future; and

(2) Members endorse the proposed revised approach and timetable for the Local Plan as set out in the report.

• The amendment to the “Provisional spatial distribution” was not attached to

the minutes and in the event however, at the full Council meeting on 16th

June 2011 the Chairman of the Local Development Framework Subcommittee

changed the recommendations made by the Committee and as a result full

Council actually resolved as follows:

1. The Council should continue to prepare a Draft Local Plan in general

conformity with the Regional Spatial Strategy. However, members also recommend a preference for an annual housing target of 400 units per annum for period 2011 to 2028 and preference for 25.5 hectares of land for employment growth for the period 2011 to 2028 should be RSS be revoked in the future and the Westgate xxx site be intuitive as a standalone exception site when bought forward and

2. Members endorse the proposed advised approach in timetable of a local plan

as set out in the report.

The Full Council also resolved that:

As a consequence of the decision made at minutet 9 the provisional spatial distribution relevant to the preferred housing growth option X be agreed as attached to the minutes.

The report be noted and

The report to form the basis of further partnership work with the Districts Town and Parish Councils and other interested parties and their responses received will be used to inform the relevant of the Council’s Draft Local Plan and individual Neighbourhood Development Plans.”

• By November 2011 the name of the Local Development Framework

Subcommittee had been changed to the Local Plan Subcommittee

(presumably to address the fact that the Council had been preparing a new

Draft Local Plan DPD since October 2010) and at its meeting on the 24th

November 2011 the Local Plan Subcommittee received a Local Plan Update

Report from Officers and resolved that:

1. The progress to date in respect of the Local Plan be noted

2. The vision and objectives approved at the meeting of the Local

Development Framework Subcommittee held on the 2nd June 2011as the strategic basis for policy development be endorsed, subject to the omission of references to areas within South Downs National Park Authority boundary and

3. The general approach and direction of travel for the production of the

new Local Plan be endorsed

• In this respect it should be noted that Resolution 2 incorrectly states that the

vision and objectives were approved at the meeting of the Local Development

Framework Subcommittee on 2nd June 2011 which is not the case as that

meeting simply agreed same for public consultation which does not appear to

have taken place. So once again important matters were being agreed and

endorsed as the strategic basis for policy development in formulating the

emerging Draft Local Plan before the agreed public consultation in respect of

same was undertaken.

• The Local Plans Subcommittee also recommended to Full Council on the 11th

January 2012 that:

1. Submission of a revised Local Development Scheme as amended at

the meeting to the Department Communities and local government for the end of December 2011 be endorsed and

2. Once the Secretary of State had approved the Local Development

Scheme or the Council has not received a response within four weeks of submission it be published on the Council’s website.

This Local Development Scheme was for the period 2011 to 2014 and it refers to the

replacement of the Local Development Scheme 2010 – 2013 and the production of a

new Local Plan as opposed to the three separate DPDs as agreed in October 2010.

The local development scheme was therefore, once again, amended retrospectively

to address this agreed change contrary to the relevant provisions in Section 15 of the

principal Act and Section 111 of the Localism Act 2011.

Further, the Local Plan to be produced is described in that Local Development

scheme as follows:

“The Local Plan will represent the spatial vision of the Sustainable Community Strategy and the strategic planning issues of the District. It will set out the broad location/s or Strategic site allocations to deliver the district housing requirements as well as the small scale housing allocations both within and outside the defined Built Up Area. It will include policies to deliver the strategy and will be accompanied by a delivery plan to show what infrastructure is needed to accompany strategic development together with means for monitoring the plan. A number of implementation policies will be included to help implement the preferred approach and this will include development management policies. The Local Plan will also identify sites to meet the needs of Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople”. The Timetable specified was as follows: Prepare Draft Local Plan - November 2011 – May 2012 Regulation 25 Consultation - June - July 2012 Pre-Submission publication - November – December 2012 Regulation 27 Submission - March 2013 Examination - May/June 2013 Inspector's Report - November 2013 The 2004 regulations were replaced by the 2012 regulations on 6th April 2012 and an

officers report to the Local Plan Subcommittee on the 26th April 2012 sought to

address the implications of the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning)

(England) Regulation 2012 for the then emerging Local Plan as follows:

“The above regulations are now in force and are summarised below

• The duty to cooperate applies to Arun District Council and the three bodies that Arun has always worked in producing policy including economic partnership. The duty gives a higher requirement on interactivity between authorities and plan making however at the regulations do not detail clearly what this means. These are spelt out more clearly in the NPPF in relation to the production of joint evidence and strategic policy matters including for example, changing of housing and market assessments.

• The regulations confirm that Arun’s used to the term Local Plan is legitimate, in line with bullet point they confirmed that Arun can ask the Planning Inspector to provide modifications to a plan to make the plan adoptable and

• Provide for minimum requirements for local plan monitoring”.

• There is no reference or acknowledgement in the report of the sea change

that Regulation 18 introduced when replacing the former Regulation 25 in the

2004 regulations in terms of the front loading of consultation and the

prescriptive nature of that consultation,

• No review of approach was attempted as to whether or not the impending

Draft Local Plan consultation would in fact meet the requirements of the new

Regulation 18

• Another report on the same agenda entitled “Local Plan Update” also makes

no reference to the implications of this sea change in the regulations and

makes no reference to the status of the proposed Draft Local Plan

consultation in terms of either the 2004 or 2012 regulations. The report simply

serves to reiterate what the Council was preparing was a fully worked up Draft

Local Plan for public consultation with no stated intent to invite outside bodies

or persons to make representations to the Local Planning Authority about

what the Local Plan ought to contain as required by the new Regulation 18.

• Paragraph 1.2 of the report states that

“A series of meeting dates had been set up with the Local Development Framework Subcommittee in May whether various sections of the Plan will be presented prior to the Plan going to Full Council on June 20th and the May meetings have been arranged as follows:

May 10th – “living place to place” May 14th – “busy place” (which will in future be known as Prosperous Place) May 15th – “connected place” May 21st – “protected place”

In order that the above meetings are as productive as possible the Policy Teams proposing the Draft Plan is circulated to the members of the committee for initial feedback. It is proposed to forward an electronic copy of the plan to each member of the subcommittee as well as each member of the Local Planning Advisory Group on the morning of April 23rd. Comments will be invited (preferably by email) for a period of one week ending on April 27th in this way the planning politician can prepare a report and see if there are any issues raised by members of this committee at an early stage and recommend changes to the plan as appropriate this report can then form the main reasons at which the members will be given further opportunity to comment on the plan”.

• The minutes of the meeting also make it clear that “verbal advice was given

that the meeting referred to at Paragraph 1.2 were actually briefings for the

Subcommittee only and were not open to the public – the website had been

updated accordingly”.

• It is therefore clear from this report and the minutes that the public

consultation undertaken in respect of the Draft Local Plan July to September

2012 was not a statutory consultation under Regulation 18 of the 2012

regulations but was in fact a consultation relating to a fully drafted local plan

with no opportunity for town or parish councils or the public to do anything

other than to comment on its contents.

• The concerns about the degree to which the Draft Local Plan consultation and

not the statutory requirements of Regulation 18 are reinforced by the fact that

the Draft Local Plan published at that date describes a fully drafted plan

detailed policies and text and the letter to town and parish councils simply

refers to this as a consultation and invites “views” on that Draft Local Plan

rather than inviting representations about what a local plan with a specified

subject ought to contain as required by Regulation 18 of the 2012 regulations.

• It is also noteworthy that the Draft Local Plan published for public consultation

July to September 2012 was not the same DPD as that identified and

described in the Local Development Scheme 2011 to 2013. As it did not deal

with many of the issues that a Local Development Scheme states that this

Local Plan DPD would deal with and address.

2013 - 2014 • Regulation 18 (3) of the 2012 regulations states that in preparing the Local

Plan a Local Planning Authority must take into account any representation

made to them in response to those matters under Paragraph (1) and there is

no doubt that the Local Plans Subcommittee and Full Council considered the

representations received as a result of the Draft Local Plan consultation as

the representations made were considered over a series of meetings held for

that purpose between January and May 2013 but since these representations

were not made under Regulation Paragraph 18 (1) the Local Planning

Authority does not appear to have complied with this aspect of the regulation

either.

• In the event, however, the Local Plan Subcommittee and the Full Council at

meetings in May 2013 rejected all changes made to the Draft Local Plan in

response to the representations made as a result of the July to September

2012 consultation in any case.

• The Councils statement of consultation explains this as being Arun Local Plan

Pause and Review 2013 – 2014 but this description does not match the

minutes of the Full Council meeting of 29 May 2013 which are attached to this

statement given the importance of these and their implications for the validity

of the current Regulation 19 process.

• What actually happened in the aftermath of the rejection of the Draft Local

Plan as amended following the representations made was in reality a

complete rewrite of a Draft Local Plan which had been consulted upon in July

to September 2012 with many changes being made by members and officers

based on new informal consultation as well as further and new evidence.

Clearly such a “pause” could have and should have been used to undertake a

proper Regulation 18 consultation but the Council appears to have chosen not

to do so.

• Finally in July 2014 the Council adopted a New Local Development Scheme

(this was published on the 16th July 2014 and came into effect on the 17th July

2014). This Local Development Scheme timetable refers to the Draft Local

Plan consultation in July – September 2012 as Regulation 18 consultation but

it like all before it was prepared retrospectively and in a hurry and presumably

was designed to add credence to the manufactured idea that the draft plan

published for consultation in July 2012 met the Plan preparation Consultation

arrangements set out in Regulation 18 of the 2012 regulations so that the

Council could then legitimise the current Regulation 19 consultation.

It therefore seems to the respondents that the current Regulation 19 consultation is

in itself invalid as it has been undertaken in respect of a DPD which was not

prepared in accordance with Regulation 18 of the 2012 regulations as they like many

others have been denied to right to actively influence its contents.

Legal and Procedural Compliance – Statutory Duty to Cooperate It seems to the respondents that all of the foregoing and the Council’s own

Regulation 22 “Statement of Consultation” leads to the conclusions that:

• Compliance with the statutory duty to cooperate when compiling this DPD did

not commence in earnest until November 2012 some two years after the

decision was taken to produce the document and after the July – September

2012 Consultation.

• None of the data and findings described were available at earlier stages of

consultation and none was made available for comment at the date of the

Draft Local Plan consultation in July to September 2012.

• No meaningful effective or productive attempt to meet the statutory

requirement was made until after all the key decisions regarding the strategic

boundary issues in the emerging plan (housing requirements, housing

delivery and transport) had already been made.

• It is impossible, therefore, to conclude that the publication version of the Plan

has resulted from any meaningful and effective process conducted under the

statutory duty to cooperate.

Legal and Procedural Compliance – The Sustainability Appraisal dated 30th October 2014 The Sustainability Appraisal published on the 30th October 2014 (at the same time as

the publication version of the Local Plan the subject of this Regulation 19 process) is

also flawed and points to deficiencies throughout the published plan in that:

• The Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report undertaken in 2009 was subject

to the statutory 5 weeks consultation but because of its age and the

circumstances pertaining at that date the Scoping Report provides no

meaningful basis in terms of the level of detail, environmental information, and

/ or other important matters now raised in the October 2014 for the “final”

Sustainability Appraisal Report now produced.

• Further the SA indicates that this district is not significantly constrained and it

is considered that the district could sustainably accommodate further growth

and needs to do so to maintain and boost the local economy which contrasts

with the Housing Delivery and Implementation elements of the Publication

version of the Plan.

• As a result the final Sustainability Appraisal to be submitted, fails to address in

any meaningful detailed way the specific reasons why the critical decisions in

the Plan have been taken, the reasons behind the detail of the policies or the

reasons why alternatives relating to matters such as the housing

requirements, location for housing, Green Infrastructure provision and

transportation infrastructure were selected or rejected as appropriate. In short

the document fails to answer the critical questions for an inspector when

examining the plan which are “what, where, when, and how”.

Why the Plan is considered to be unsound The NPPF states at Paragraph 182 that the “local plan will be examined by an

independent inspector who is well placed to assess whether the local plan is being

prepared in accordance with the duty to cooperate, legal and procedural

requirements and whether it is sound”.

It is also clear that a local planning authority should not submit a plan to examination

unless and until it considers it to be sound. Government policy in the NPPF and

guidance in the NPPG combined to prescribe the tests of sound necessary that an

inspector at examination should use which are as follows:

1. A local plan should be positively prepared and based on a strategy which

seeks to meet carefully assessed development and infrastructure

requirements.

2. The Plan should be justified in that the most appropriate strategy when

considering its the reasonable alternatives have been chosen based on the

proportionate evidence base.

3. The plan should be effective in that it is deliverable over its plan period based

on effective trying to working with regard to cross boundary strategic priorities.

4. It is considered it is consistent with National Policy in that it will enable the

delivery of sustainable development.

In particular we would draw the Inspectors attention to the housing delivery section

and housing implementation strategy which are set out in the Plan and a separate

document published with it dated October 2014 and would highlight that these do not

answer the basic questions of “what”, “where”, “when”, or “how” which flow from the

tests of soundness.

In terms of “what” the documents do not provide the following as required by relevant

policy and practice guidance set out by the Government:-

• A definitively objective assessed housing needs figure for the District or why the

figure of 580 dwellings per annum seems to have been settled on by the Council.

• A definitive annual requirement figure for the period 2011 to 2031. Although the

figure of 580 dwellings per annum that appears to have been settled upon by the

Council would equate to 11,600 dwellings during the planned period being

provided or required, this total figure has not been stated and in any case none

of these figures take account of any housing that the District needs to provide

under the duty to co-operate in terms of accommodation shortfalls in provision

from elsewhere within the housing market area.

In terms of “where” whilst the Plan does seek to provide some clarity as to where

some of the housing required will be located, the locations specified do not combine

to allocate sites sufficient to meet the total housing requirements for the Plan period

implied within the Plan (constrained or unconstrained). This approach lacks clarity

and certainty as to the Plans ability to deliver (as it must do) the objectively assessed

development and infrastructure requirements or properly assess the reasons why

this is not possible.

In terms of “when” the Plan provides no certainty as to when the bulk of the housing

it proposes will be delivered as the approach set out in the housing implementation

strategy is seriously flawed both in terms of a requirement to maintain a five year

housing land supply from the base date of the publication version of the Plan (2011)

and/or in terms of maintaining a five year land supply at any given date throughout

the Plan period as the published housing trajectory is based on flawed assumptions

regarding delivery rates and flawed assumptions regarding the availability of sites.

In terms of “how” the Plan does not provide sufficient certainty as to the delivery of

even a constrained level of housing proposed (let alone the infrastructure necessary

to accommodate the same and the “infrastructure delivery plan” and the related CIL

charging regime will remain ill-defined and/or in a draft form for some time to come.

Summary

In summary ADC is clearly not ready at the date of this Publication Version of the

Draft Local Plan to submit same for examination as it has failed to meet some key

legal compliance tests and has failed to address the “what”, “where”, “when” and

“how” questions that are critical to demonstrate the overall soundness of the Plan.

Further evidence to support this view is demonstrated by the fact that the Council

itself acknowledges the degree of uncertainty on many of these issues by committing

to a review of a Plan by no later than 2010 (i.e. no more than five years after the

anticipated adoption dates for 2015). Whilst such a review is good practice it should

not be necessary at the outset of a plan covering a 20 year period to leave so many

important matters open to such a short term review if that plan is soundly produced

and based on sound evidence in the first place.

The Soundness of Policy HSP1 (Strategic housing, parish and town council allocations)

The main concerns with regard to this site specific policy flow from the concerns relating to the legal compliance and soundness of the Local Plan as a whole set out above.

The “What”, where, how and when Questions

Despite being a lengthy policy with expansive supporting text the proposals that it describes, including the strategic site allocation at Westergate remain ill-defined and vague.

The quantum of housing proposed for the specific site to be allocated at Westergate is not well defined and the detail of the related A29 realignment scheme remains vague and inadequate for a proper examination as to its need, validity and deliverability/viability.

In particular none of the available background Housing evidence documents produced by the Council or on its behalf between 2005 and the current date demonstrate that a housing site of at least 2000 houses needs to be placed in this location and indeed much of the later evidence since 2012 suggests that district wide housing needs have been and may be better addressed in the future via a range of smaller sites in more sustainable locations elsewhere in the district.

The Transport Evidence (much of whi9ch was produced after the proposal appeared

in the 2012 Draft Local Plan) does not support the need, validity and

deliverability/viability of an A29 Realignment or the scheme as now proposed either

in that:

The Arun District Strategic Transport Study 2006 makes no reference to this

scheme

The Strategic Transport Modelling Study 2009 and Addendum Reports whilst

modeling various Road impact scenarios and solutions do not model this particular

proposal as it now appears

The A29 Woodgate Study 2012 concluded that of the A29 Realignment options

available the best solution was Option A, to the west of Woodgate which was

preferred because:

• It provides the best transport connectivity opportunities of all the options

• It brings widest potential economic benefits of all the options

• Environmentally it is acceptable

• It has the least property demolition of all the options

• It best meets the study objectives of all the options.

A29 Study (2013) This study examined the viability of various alternative

realignments for the A29 based on the assumption that the need for same had

already been established which it had not The Arun Transport Study for Strategic Development 2013 was funded and commissioned by the promoters of the strategic development site at Westergate so it (unsurprisingly) supports the benefits and viability of the proposed A29 Realignment but even this document does not suggest that the proposal derives from any needs analysis.

A29 Realignment Feasibility Study (July 2014) serves to confirm that at the date of the Publication Version of the Local Plan the financial viability of the proposed Realignment rogether with its deliverability remain uncertain.

There is, therefore, little evidence to demonstrate why a site of this size needs to be allocated in this particular location so as to address District wide Housing needs and Issues.

Why this approach was chosen as being preferable to other alternatives previously considered but seemingly rejected. Such proposals include further major urban extension to Bognor Regis and/or Littlehampton, major developments in the Ford area, and/or a combination of these coupled with smaller scale sites in/or adjoining sustainable settlements throughout the District.

There is also no firm or clear evidence which supports the A29 re-alignment scheme in a way that demonstrates that such a proposal is a justified or necessary Transport infrastructure improvement and the viability and deliverability of the A29 re-alignment scheme as now proposed although obviously assisted by the proposed 2000 + housing scheme remains highly questionable based on the evidence provided by the Council. Whilst local plans are entitled to include desirable aspirations these need to be supported by a firm evidence base which demonstrates that they are capable of being implemented and this is not the case in this instance.

The answer to the question when will the strategic allocation at Westergate and its associated A29 re-alignment scheme be delivered is also indiscernible from the policy itself or its supporting text. This is a significant issue which goes to the heart of the soundness of the Plan itself and its approach to housing delivery and implementation given that the purpose of such a site allocation is to demonstrate that the Plan can address the delivery of the housing and infrastructure which the Plan states is required and the Council’s inability to answer the question “when will such a

site allocation associated A29 re-alignment scheme be delivered” goes to the heart of the soundness of the overall housing delivery and implementation strategy of the plan and Policy HSP1.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

13

MINUTES OF A

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE ARUN DISTRICT COUNCIL HELD IN THE ARUN CIVIC CENTRE

ON 29 MAY 2013 AT 6.00 P.M.

Present:- Councillors Chapman (Chairman), Maconachie, (Vice-Chairman), Ayling, Bence, Bicknell, Mrs Bower, R Bower, Mrs Bowyer, Brooks, Mrs Brown, L.Brown, Charles, Clayden, Cooper, Cunard, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Dingemans, Edwards, Elkins, Mrs Emberson, English, Evans, Mrs Goad, Mrs Hall, Haymes, Hitchins, Mrs. Maconachie, Mrs Madeley, McDougall, McIntyre, Nash, Northeast, Mrs Oakley, Oppler, Patel, Squires, Mrs Stainton, Steward, Tyler, Dr Walsh, Mrs Warr, Wells, Wensley, Wilde and Wotherspoon.

[Note: Councillor Ayling was absent from the meeting during consideration of the matters referred to in Minute 36 (part.]

26. WELCOME The Chairman welcomed Councillors, representatives of the public, press and officers to the meeting. 27. APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE Apologies for absence had been received from Councillors Britton, Gammon, Holman, Jones, Mrs Neno, Oliver-Redgate, Mrs Pendleton and Mrs Smee and Honorary Aldermen Mrs Morrish, Mrs Olliver and Mrs Stinchcombe. 28. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST The Monitoring Officer has advised Members of interim arrangements to follow when making declarations of interest. They have been advised that for the reasons explained below, they should make their declarations on the same basis as the former Code of Conduct using the descriptions of Personal and Prejudicial Interests. Reasons

The Council has adopted the Government’s example for a new local code of conduct, but new policies and procedures relating to the new local code are yet to be considered and adopted.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

14 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

Members have not yet been trained on the provisions on the new local code of conduct.

The definition of Pecuniary Interests is narrower than the definition of Prejudicial Interests, so by declaring a matter as a Prejudicial Interest, that will cover the requirement to declare a Pecuniary Interest in the same matter.

Where a member declares a “Prejudicial/Pecuniary Interest”, this will, in the interests of clarity for the public, be recorded in the minutes as a Prejudicial and Pecuniary Interest. Councillor Dr Walsh declared a personal interest as a member of West Sussex County Council and Littlehampton Town Council in respect of highway infrastructure and the representation made by the Town Council regarding the Local Plan. Councillor Mrs Bowyer declared a personal interest as a member of Littlehampton Town Council. Councillor Oppler declared a personal interest as a member of West Sussex County Council. 29. QUESTION TIME The Chairman advised the meeting that, due to the number of questions that had been submitted prior to the meeting, he would be using his discretion to extend Public Question Time to 30 minutes and, having been duly proposed and seconded, the Council agreed that Rule 9.6.1 of the Procedure for Council Meetings would be deleted so that supplementary questions could not be asked. The Questions and Answers asked and responded to at the meeting by the Cabinet Member for Planning are summarised below, with the exception of Question 1 which was responded to by the Leader of the Council:-

Q1 – By expressing a preference for greenfield development at Angmering, Barnham, Eastergate and Aldingbourne in the draft Local Plan, the Council has left the largest brownfield site in West Sussex, Ford Airfield, available for additional housing. The second largest brownfield site, the former Topblock factory is also adjacent. By leaving these brownfield sites available, will this make it more or less likely that Arun is required to make provision for additional housing on behalf of Worthing, London and the South Downs National Park? A1 – No I don’t think it will.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

15 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

Q2 – Can anyone of the Councillors present please explain to me the mathematical derivations of the “population growth” figure of 23609 and the related “Housing Number Total” figure of 11521 in line 5B of table 5.1 on p12 of the Arun Summary SHMA? A2 – The data provided in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) is based on the data available at the time the report was written. The consultants who have analysed all the relevant date for the Council and other neighbouring authorities advise that, overall, new data published since the projections for Arun were developed suggest an upward movement of housing numbers (in the case of CLG headship rates) and a downward movement in the case of 5 year migration trends (albeit slightly upwards if we look at 10 year trends). The answer given above was also accepted in respect of questions 3, 4 and 6 as they were of a similar nature. Q5 - I understand that planning officers informed the Sub-Committee looking at the Community Infrastructure Levy on 20 May that it was proposed not to take the CIL on the strategic housing allocation for the New Town at Eastergate as this would provide insufficient funding for the A29 by-pass owing to 25% being allocated to the parishes but to enter into a Section 106 Agreement instead. I gather planning officers explained that even with a S106 agreement there was unlikely to be sufficient funding for the northern and southern extensions of the by-pass, causing congestion on the narrow B2233 and leaving the notorious Lidsey bend untouched.

In addition the New Town would disgorge thousands of additional cars onto the B2233 every day. This is a narrow B road straddling the centre of the villages which carries a lot of East-West traffic, whereas the A29 bypass is intended as a north-south route. Given the absence of any CIL, the increased congestion, the closure of services and other businesses in Westergate, with consequential job losses, and the fact that level crossing closure would split the community in two, could the Cabinet Member please explain what benefit the A29 by pass would bring a) to the people of the 3 parishes (Aldingbourne, Eastergate and Barnham) and b) to businesses in Bognor? A5 – The CIL is being developed alongside the Local Plan – decisions made on the Local Plan will inform the CIL. CIL is only one aspect of potential infrastructure finance. S106 is an appropriate mechanism for securing contributions for infrastructure within or close to a development boundary. Arun District Council has been advised by its consultants that Section 106 is a more flexible mechanism to secure contributions than CIL for strategic allocations. Arun District Council believes this to be the case and is proposing to exempt the strategic

Subject to approval at the next meeting

16 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

allocations from CIL. The CIL is scheduled to undergo public consultation this summer.

Road improvements are often carried out in phases and the A29 realignment is no different. Bognor Regis Limited which includes John Wiley and Sons Ltd, Sovereign Group, Solarton Ametek, URT Group and Butlins, has made it very clear that it supports the Woodgate Level crossing bypass and funding for it by development. They cite that the housing growth and the level crossing bypass will help to minimise out commuting and will encourage the right environment for businesses to grow – this undoubtedly will benefit the whole of Arun let alone the three villages. Q7 – New Members to the Council were given an organised coach tour to give them an overview of the District they had been elected to represent and to help create a mind set for district wide decision making. Site visits are also a key element in important or controversial planning decision making. Have Councillors undertaken site visits to the three strategic locations under consideration in the LDF/Local Plan process and, if so, when did they take place? A7 – Members who served on the Local Development Framework Subcommittee at the time were invited to visit sites as part of the options for growth consultation in 2009. In addition, Members have also visited the sites that form part of this Local Plan and some of the rejected sites as recently as 20 May 2013. Q8 - Could the Cabinet Member please explain why a document purportedly dated March 2013 containing data prepared by G L Hearn about the demographic projection for the District was placed on the Arun Website on 24 May 2013, just five days before the Full Council meeting, when it was not listed in “forthcoming documents” and whether he is satisfied that Councillors will have had adequate time to digest and assess the veracity of these figures against data for the Strategic Housing Market Assessment previously presented to the Council, which analysis has been shown to be flawed. A8 - The Coastal West Sussex Partnership commissioned the SHMA and a meeting was held on Thursday (23 May 2013) – until that body had signed off the data it was not possible to put into the public domain. In addition I would ask that you wait to see what happens tonight.

Q9 - Were the Council to vote against the Local Plan Subcommittee recommendations for the Local Plan, according to the CIL Sub Committee last week, Ford Parish, which has no Parish housing allocation in the daft Local Plan, would receive 25% of the Community

Subject to approval at the next meeting

17 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

Infrastructure Levy charged on every new house in its Neighbourhood Plan (minus the 5% rake off Arun would take for handling the admin). Eastergate Parish would receive 0% for 2,000 houses it doesn’t want in any Plan and Bognor Regis parishes would receive nothing for any new housing in the Town Centre, whether it wanted them or not. How is this fair to the residents of any of these Parishes?

A9 - The purpose behind CIL and Section 106 agreements in this context is to address the provision of infrastructure. It is proposed that any strategic allocation be zero rated for CIL so that on site infrastructure is secured through section 106 agreements. No development can by law be required to pay for the same infrastructure under both CIL and s106. Outside of these areas CIL would apply and the Local Parish or Town Council would receive 15% or 25% depending on whether they had an adopted Neighbourhood Plan or not. I hope any Council receiving such monies will use it wisely to help fund infrastructure needs in their area.

Q10 - Were the Council to vote against the Local Plan Subcommittee recommendations for the Local Plan, it seems that you would be considering building an A29 Through Pass with no connections to other A roads - a kind of tarmac oxbow lake that would turn the Barnham Road into an unsustainable, permanent traffic jam. How would you propose to change the single lane road through Barnham Centre and, crucially, exactly what would you propose for the Eastergate War Memorial roundabout?

A10 - If the Council were to vote against the LPSC recommendations then it is unlikely the long desired realignment would be able to be funded before the first review of the Local Plan. The A29 realignment was first scheduled in the County Surveyor’s Plans in 1940’s, again in 1958 West Sussex Development Plan (southern Section) and in the 1973 Planning Policies for the West Sussex County Council and its purpose is still as relevant today. The details of design and mitigation matters are for another stage of the planning process. The Local Plan itself only seeks to safeguard routes from alternative development.

Q11 - Were the Council to vote against the LPSC recommendations for the Local Plan, an A29 Bypass would require massive investment to achieve a reduction in congestion at Woodgate Crossing. In transport economics a Cost Benefit Analysis is always prepared to assess whether that congestion saving can be justified. Why has no Cost Benefit Analysis been conducted to consider the £50 million cost against the benefits of all available alternatives, including modern crossing management systems, prior to the creation of the daft Local Plan and why has no traffic census been conducted to inform such a decision?

Subject to approval at the next meeting

18 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

A11 - The Local Plan proposes to safeguard a route in land use terms. The studies which have been carried out, the A29 Woodgate Study and the A29 Realignment Viability Study have both been carried out in conjunction with West Sussex County Council as the local highway authority. The A29 Woodgate Study includes an evaluation using the Department for Transport’s “Five Case Business Model” which examines issues of strategic, economic, commercial, financial and management cases for each option. Both the A29 Woodgate Study and the A29 Realignment Viability Study are feasibility level studies and both state that a business case needs to be prepared after the adoption of the Local Plan. With regards to traffic data, WSCC as the highway authority advised the consultants conducting the feasibility studies on which traffic data was acceptable for the studies. Q12 - I have previously stood before the Full Council and expressed that the residents of the District lack confidence in the Council because of the way it treats us. Pieces of evidence to support the Plan to be voted on today remain listed as ‘TBA’ on the ADC website. Last Friday 24th May Officers put 3 documents into the Public domain for the first time. One is the document called the Updated Demographic Projections Report March 2013. It is the basis for the officers Housing Target of 580 houses, 4 more than the flawed SHMA 2012 dated February 2013 concluded were needed for a higher population. Is this late publication, which still does not have its contents error checked, supported by analysis or source data, another example of shoddy practice or just a sign of the policy of contempt that has become endemic in the Council’s dealings with its electors?

A12 - I have answered a very similar question earlier. Therefore my only additional comment is that the Council will continue to review its evidence base to determine whether further work is necessary to assist in delivering a sound plan. Indeed it may be the case that the Examining Inspector may request the Council to provide additional evidence and we will need to be ready to respond to such requests at short notice.

The Chairman then called an end to Public Question Time and thanked members of the public who had taken the time and trouble to submit questions. 30. MINUTES The Minutes of the Council Meeting held on 22 May 2013 were approved by the Council as a correct record and signed by the Chairman.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

19 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

31. CHAIRMAN’S COMMUNICATIONS The Chairman had no communications for the meeting. 32. URGENT MATTERS There no matters for this meeting. 33. STATUTE MATTERS There were no matters for this meeting. 34. ANY OTHER MATTERS There were no matters for this meeting. 35. LOCAL PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE – 8 May 2013 The Chairman, Councillor Haymes, presented the Minutes from the meeting of the Local Plan Subcommittee held on 8 May 2013 and advised that there were a number of recommendations for Members to consider. Firstly, under Minute 43, Proposed Green Infrastructure and Gaps between Settlement Policies, it was highlighted that under recommendation (1) reference should be made to SP3 and not SP2. The recommendations were seconded by Councillor Bower and, having taken account of that amendment, the Council

RESOLVED – That (1) the proposed revised policies set out within Chapter 8 of the Local Plan be approved, subject to the Chichester to Bognor Regis Gap not being reduced; consideration of the Eastergate to Barnham Gap being deferred to a later meeting; and the wording under SP3 (iii) being amended as agreed; and (2) the proposed revised gap boundaries are approved, subject to (1) above.

The Council’s attention was then drawn to Minute 44, Recommendations for Changes to the Draft Local Plan and, in light of the Subcommittee’s decision on 16 May 2013, the Chairman requested that recommendations (1) and (2) be withdrawn. Councillor Bower seconded this proposal. The Council

Subject to approval at the next meeting

20 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

RESOLVED That recommendations (1) and (2) be withdrawn.

The Council then considered Minute 45, Local Development Scheme, and having been proposed by Councillor Haymes and seconded by Councillor Bower,

RESOLVED – That (1) The Local Development Scheme 2013-2015, as attached to the report, be approved; and (2) the Local Development Scheme shall come into effect on 1 June 2013 and shall be made available on the Council’s website.

In turning to Minute 46, Publication Local Plan Consultation, some Members expected this to be withdrawn as the decision of the Local Plan Subcommittee on 16 May 2013 would inevitably affect the timetable. However, the Head of Legal and Administration advised that a resolution on the Council’s consultation approach was required and Councillor Dr Walsh then proposed and Councillor McDougall seconded, that this recommendation should be deferred until after the debate to be had in respect of the resolutions detailed in the Minutes of the meeting of the Local Plan Subcommittee held on 16 May 2013. The Council

RESOLVED

That the recommendation “that the outlined approach for the consultation on the Publication of the Local Plan be approved” be considered in the light of the debate to be had relating to the Minutes of the Local Plan Subcommittee meeting held on 16 May 2013.

Councillor Haymes then highlighted and proposed the final recommendation for Members to consider at Minute 47, Summary of Compliance with Statement of Community Involvement, which was seconded by Councillor Bower. The Council

Subject to approval at the next meeting

21 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

RESOLVED That the Local Plan Public Consultations compliance with the Council’s Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) be agreed.

36. LOCAL PLAN SUBCOMMITTEE – 16 MAY 2013 (In the course of debate on this item, the following Councillors declared a personal interest as detailed:- Councillor Wells declared a personal interest as a member of Bognor Regis Town Council. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote. Councillor Elkins declared a personal interest as a member of Littlehampton Harbour Board. He remained in the meeting and took part in the debate and vote) As the Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure, Councillor Bower, had chaired the meeting of the Local Plan Subcommittee on 16 May 2013 in his role as Vice-Chairman due to exceptional circumstances, he would be presenting the Minutes of that meeting but first requested the Assistant Director of Planning and Economic Regeneration (ADPER) to introduce his report, which had been circulated under separate cover, and to provide his professional advice on the matter before the Council (a copy of which is attached to the Minutes). In introducing his report, the ADPER advised that it was, essentially, an updated version of the report considered by the Local Plan Subcommittee on 16 May 2013 and which now included advice from the Council’s Section 151 Officer, together with a commentary upon the recommendations of the Subcommittee. He invited Members to propose the recommendations contained in his report on the table. The meeting was reminded that the last Local Plan, which was adopted in 2003, included, for example, extensive allocation for residential development at Felpham and Bersted and which had financially supported the construction of the Bognor Regis Relief Road, due to open in 2014/15. This latest Local Plan covered the period up to 2029 – a significant period of time which meant that it was difficult to predict and be precise about what would happen in the future. However, officers had tried to use all the information available to develop a coherent and positive strategy appropriate to Arun and having regard to the national context, which was set by Government through the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Subject to approval at the next meeting

22 Special Full council – 29.05.13. The NPPF not only set out the Government’s policies on many issues such as employment, housing and the environment, but also laid down how Council’s should approach the creation of Local Plans. One clear theme running through the document was the need for the Plan to be based on evidence and, indeed, for evidence to help shape the direction of the Plan. In due course Arun’s Plan would be Examined in Public by an Inspector from the Planning Inspectorate. They would be looking to see whether, on the key issues, the Council could substantiate the strategy and approach taken in its Local Plan. The Local Plan to 2029 had a much greater focus on delivering new employment opportunities and sought to address some of the area’s infrastructure deficit. For example, the Plan sought to give formal status to the proposed 80 ha of employment space at Enterprise@ Bognor Regis and proposed the bridging of the railway to the east of Woodgate, through a re-alignment of the A29. It was acknowledged that housing was clearly a controversial issue, not just here in Arun, but nationally. There had been much debate, not only on the scale of housebuilding required, but also on where that housing should be located. Arun had commissioned a number of studies (known as the SHMA – Strategic Housing Market Assessment) together with other authorities in the Coastal West Sussex area and beyond, to identify what would be a reasonable level of house building in each of the individual authorities. These studies collectively considered demographic data (much of which had been taken from the Office for National Statistics), economic data, housing need and the characteristics of individual authority areas. Overall, the conclusion that had been drawn by officers was that the appropriate scale of housing for Arun going forward in order to meet its future housing needs should be a minimum of 580 homes per annum. This was slightly greater than 565 homes per annum required by the (now revoked) South East Plan, but was the same as the 2003 Local Plan. The recommendation to accept 580 homes per annum represented what officers (and the expert consultants engaged to advise on this work) believed to be at the lower end of the realistic options for Arun, and, even if Members agreed to this level of provision, the Council would be likely to come under significant pressure to accept a higher level at the Examination in Public. At the request of Members additional consultants were engaged to undertake a critical friend review of a number of these documents. This review concluded that the conclusions drawn were reasonable, but also reaffirmed that there was likely to be significant pressure to increase the level of provision. The Local Plan Subcommittee at its meeting on 16 May 2013, resolved that the Local Plan should provide for 455 homes per annum for the first six years. The recommendation was silent on what should happen after that. If the intention was to only have a 6 year plan then, based on current extant permissions, the Council would not need to allocate any more housing.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

23 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

However, such a Plan would, the the ADPER’s professional opinion, be found unsound as it would fail to meet the required tests. (Option A under Section 5.0 of the report). If the intention of the LPSC was to provide 455 homes per annum for the first six years followed by an annual provision thereafter until 2029 of at least 455 or higher then there would be a requirement for Full Council to confirm where that housing should go. For example, a plan of 455 homes per annum for the lifetime of the plan from 2013 onwards would still require over 4000 homes to be allocated. Alternatively, if the plan provided 580 per annum after year 6 then the residual amount to be allocated would amount to just over 5200. It was the ADPER’s professional opinion that a Local Plan based on either scenario would still be unsound. The Council was advised that if it did wish to promote a strategy based on 455 for the first 6 years, then there would be a lesser risk of the Plan being found unsound if the shortfall in the early years was made up in later years so that, on average, the provision would equate to 580 homes per annum. This required just over 6000 homes to be allocated. A constant provision of 580 homes per annum was the option recommended by officers. The ADPER advised that a Plan which simply sought to set the level of housing without indicating where it should go was not a Plan and would fail the statutory tests. In addition, Members needed to be aware that the statutory tests also included a requirement to meet the Duty to Co-operate. Officers at Chichester DC had offered the following comments on the LPSC recommendation:-

“Should Arun Council resolve to agree the approach recommended by the Local Plan Sub-Committee (or adopt a similar approach designed to reduce housing provision below that recommended in the officer report), we consider that the resulting Plan would be likely to fail to meet the Duty to Cooperate requirements and NPPF tests of soundness when submitted for examination. Chichester DC would not wish to raise a formal objection to the Arun Local Plan, but unless your published Plan is supported by clear evidence to justify your approach to housing provision and does not lead to a displaced housing requirement to be met elsewhere in the sub-region, we may find ourselves in this position. This is not a situation that we would welcome and we would therefore hope that Arun Council will support the officer recommendation on housing numbers at the forthcoming Full Council meeting.”

In the event that the Plan agreed by Council was found to have not met the required tests, the Council would not have a Plan to guide the future scale and location of new housing and provide for the new employment sites and infrastructure required. Nor would there be a Plan to protect areas such as

Subject to approval at the next meeting

24 Special Full Council – 29.05.13. the gaps between settlements. The likely consequence would be that development would be permitted (without the necessary infrastructure) through the appeal process. Further, the ADPER advised that, depending on what Members decided about the scale of housing to be provided, there might be a need to identify specific site allocations. Equally, Members might wish to consider varying the scale of individual allocations. There must be an awareness that any decision to consider sites of any significant size not in this version of the Local Plan, or to significantly vary the scale of the proposed allocations, must be supported by evidence (particularly on deliverability and viability) and, therefore, whilst Members could agree the overall level of housing to be provided at this meeting, any decisions on these others matters should be subject to a further report to the LPSC. This would delay the formal publication of the Plan and would require additional resources to be allocated to fund this additional work. The ADPER concluded his advice with an extract from a speech given by Nick Boles Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Planning on 10 January 2013 which, in summary, clearly indicated that Councils must assess their local housing need in an objective way and they must identify immediately developable sites sufficient to supply all of the new homes that were needed over the next 5 years. Whilst some Councils were embracing this duty, others were not and this was not acceptable. Councils which did not accept their responsibilities and did not produce credible Plans to meet local housing need would find that the presumption in favour of sustainable development would trump local decisions. They would have to explain to local residents why their failure to produce a robust Local Plan exposed their communities to speculative development in places where it was not welcome. Councillors would have to find a way to persuade the people who elected them that substantial further house-building was in the interest of the whole community, including those who were living there now. The ADPER strongly suggested that Members should propose the recommendations in his report dated 22nd May and support them fully. Prior to moving on, Councillor Dr Walsh put forward a question to the ADPER and asked whether the Planning Officers had been approached by the Leader or the Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure prior to the recommendations being changed at the meeting of the Local Plan Subcommittee. The ADPER stated that he did not recall any such approach being made and that the matter was dealt with on the night. Councillor Dr Walsh then asked, given the strong advice given to Members at that meeting by the ADPER, did he still stand by the officer recommendations to Full Council and that the recommendations of the Subcommittee on 16 May 2013 should not be agreed. The ADPER stated that he was still of that firm view.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

25 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

Councillor Bower then presented the Minutes of the meeting of the LPSC held on 16 May 2013 and, in so doing, advised the meeting that approving a Local Plan would probably be the most difficult decision Members would have to make as it would have enormous consequences on the District. He was of the view that the matters to be considered must be dealt with corporately and not parochially, and it was understandable that the public did not always appreciate the constraints under which the Council had to operate. The question of the quantum of housing remained controversial but in order to have a Local Plan found sound, where that housing was to be located (providing it was deliverable and sustainable) required infrastructure to support such development without impinging on the already strained infrastructure of the District. Experience over the last 13 years had shown that increased housing did not deliver more jobs and Arun still had the second worst job density in the South East, with the resulting unacceptable levels of out commuting on an inadequate highway network. In his opinion, whilst the conclusions of the Strategic Market Housing Assessment (SHMA) were in themselves justified, they hid the fact that the underlying data was flawed in respect to population growth, in-migration, household size, etc. He was of the view that this would likely change the quantum figure but that could be worked on in the short term and he therefore proposed an amendment to the first recommendation detailed under Minute 51 (Report on Arun District Local Plan), which was seconded by Councillor Haymes, as follows:-

To delete the words as shown crossed through and to add the words as shown in bold: That the Council’s Local Plan should allocate 455 homes per annum for the next 6 years only thereafter 655 from 2019 for each year to 2028/29 inclusive. Further housing provision should be determined by means of review prior to the expiry of that period.

This to become recommendation (1) to therefore read:

(1) the Council’s Local Plan should allocate 455 homes per annum for the next six years thereafter 655 from 2019 for each year to 2028-2029 inclusive;

and to add further recommendations to read:

(2) strategic allocations be determined in light of the outcome of a

review of the SHMA;

(3) the Council refers these matters to a future meeting of the Local Plan Sub-Committee; and

Subject to approval at the next meeting

26 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

(4) the sum of up to £100,000 be agreed as a supplementary estimate for the production of studies and other evidence to support the above. This is equivalent to £1.81 on a Band D property of the Council Tax.

In opening the debate on the amendment, the Leader of the Labour

Group, Councillor Nash, stated that a critical decision had to be made and that not everyone could be satisfied. He believed that the direction the Council appeared to be going in was the height of irresponsibility and against officers’ advice. A figure of 455 houses per annum would be found to be unsound and the consequences would be horrendous. Development would take place without the benefit of improved infrastructure and both the Council and residents would lose out. If development was not to take place in the villages of Barnham, Eastergate, Westergate and Aldingbourne, then undue pressure would be placed on Littlehampton and Bognor Regis, both of which had already taken up a lot of new development. He reiterated his view expressed at Local Plan Subcommittee meetings that Ford was a sustainable location for development and should be seriously considered. Councillor Dr Walsh echoed the views expressed by the previous speaker and further stated that the unqualified advice from the officers was that the amendment should not be supported and that a housing figure of 580 per annum should be agreed. He felt that the amended housing figure was in fact a face saving device because the total houses to be built by the end of the Plan period would be almost the same. His view was that the amendment was ill thought out and unsound. Opposition to the amendment centred on concerns that, with no up to date Local Plan in place, the District would be left open to development by appeal with no improvements to infrastructure being brought forward, which was of no benefit to anyone. The issue of fairness was also reiterated in that Littlehampton and Bognor Regis had been subjected to substantial development and it was time the villages shared the load. It was pointed out that the Ford Eco Town proposal was quite rightly found to be unacceptable based on the evidence presented but that did not preclude consideration of development on a lesser scale at Ford and, in fact, Ford Parish Council itself appeared to welcome such proposals. This would go some way to relieving the pressure on the villages and would provide a safeguard for other areas of the District. Councillor McDougall made comment that, two years ago, he did support a lower housing number but the situation had changed in that the evidence base was now clear and robust and he felt that to not support the figure of 580 per annum would be an error of judgement and constitute gross negligence and incompetence. He was certain that there was a high risk that the Council would lose control of its planning process.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

27 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

Further views were expressed that within the National Planning Policy Framework there was a presumption for growth and the government would trump the wishes of the local authority for a lower housing figure. There could be no improvement to the infrastructure without substantial housing development as the two went hand in hand and that had to be recognised. NIMBYism (Not in My Back Yard) was playing its part in the decision making process and that should not be allowed to override what was best for the District as a whole. Without a Local Plan, strategic gaps would lose their protected status and Arun would lose control of its planning process. The Leader of the Liberal Democrat Group, Councillor Oppler, stated that the officer advice had made it clear that the views of the Local Plan Subcommittee on housing provision could not be sustained at the Examination in Public and, as such, the Local Plan would be found to be unsound. The amendment on the table was flying in the face of that advice and the whole District would be put at risk. He also commented that the work that had been done thus far on regeneration in Bognor Regis would become meaningless. The Leader of the Independent Group, Councillor Brooks, voiced his opposition to the amendment and stated that he could not understand why Ford was not being considered for development as it would take pressure off the villages. He felt that a commitment should be made to improving the A29 into Bognor Regis and to enterprise@Bognor Regis. Furthermore, a decision had to be taken now rather than putting if off for 6 years in the hope that at the end of that time the requirement for housing provision would change to a lower figure. Counter arguments were put that Members had to have confidence in the data contained in the SHMA and there needed to be a review of that before the matter could go forward to then make decisions on the strategic allocations. The Government had to be lobbied as Arun could not just accept more and more houses due to the problems of flooding, poor road network and the high percentage of out commuting that was experienced in the District. Options must be explored to improve the hold ups caused by the level crossings in the District, particularly at Woodgate, by way of re-timetabling, etc and Railtrack was already working with the Council on that matter. The Leader of the Council, Councillor Mrs Brown, stated that what was required was a flexible Plan which was based on improving the local economy – the SHMA was just one part of the evidence base. There had been a 10% loss of jobs since 2008 and the area suffered from low employment and low wages. The housing demand was driven by inward migration, with outcommuting resulting in 14,000 people travelling to jobs outside the District, which in turn placed a heavy demand on the transport infrastructure. It was absolutely vital to see improvements for the A27 and the Arundel Bypass.

Subject to approval at the next meeting

28 Special Full Council – 29.05.13. The thinking behind having a lower housing figure of 455 for the first 6 years would be to provide the Council with a breathing space. The Council participated in a lengthy debate which reiterated many of the points already made, including comments around the detrimental impact of not going ahead with improvements to the A29 on the regeneration proposals for Bognor Regis and the proposals for enterprise@Bognor Regis and aspirations for the West Bank at Littlehampton. A question was asked of the Leader of the Council in respect of the advice from the Section 151 Officer (appended to the report from the ADPER) relating to the financial impact of providing 30 new council homes per annum, which had been included in the housing provision figure of 455 homes per annum. The borrowing required would amount to approximately £25M and that would be in addition to the £71M already undertaken by the Council to fund the self-financing settlement. He asked whether the financial assumptions around this provision were sound. The Leader responded by stating that she was astounded that Councillor Nash did not support the plans to provide council housing for Arun’s residents – a figure of 30 per annum was relatively modest and was an aspiration that the Council should support, and the financial assumptions were indeed sound. Councillor Nash clarified that the issue was not the principle of providing new council housing but rather what the financial implications were in the long term. A query was raised that many of the Town and Parish Councils were in the process of preparing the Neighbourhood Plans, working towards the numbers previously agreed by the District Council, and how would that work be affected by the amendment on the table tonight. Councillor Haymes spoke as seconder to the amendment and made reference to the comments put forward in respect of Ford as a development site. He stated that most of the site was classed as greenfield, with only 9% being brownfield, and in his view not many people would want to live in such close proximity to the sewage plant, the MRF (Materiala Recycling Facility) and incinerator. He also felt that the villages were taking their fair share of development. The Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure then concluded the debate on the amendment by confirming his view that the underlying data in the SHMA could be wrong and that was why a review was being requested. One the conclusions was that all the housing in the Coastal West Sussex Area was unlikely to be built and, if that was the case, then Arun might be in a position where it would have to absorb housing numbers from Worthing and Chichester which would be untenable. The amendment would provide an opportunity to make strong representation to central government. There was

Subject to approval at the next meeting

29 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

an urgent need for infrastructure and jobs, with the A27 and A259 being important issues due to congestion and a report from MVA predicting that, without improvements, the A259 would be at full capacity by 2022.

A request was received that the voting on the amendment should be recorded. Those voting for the amendment were Councillors Bence, Bicknell, Mrs Bower, Bower, Mrs Bowyer, Mrs Brown, L. Brown, Charles, Clayden, Cooper, Mrs Daniells, Dendle, Dingemans, Edwards, Elkins, Mrs Emberson, English, Evans, Mrs Goad, Mrs Hall, Haymes, Hitchins, Maconachie, Mrs Maconachie, Mrs Madeley, McIntyre, Mrs Oakley, Patel, Mrs Stainton, Steward, Tyler, Wensley, Wilde, and Wotherspoon (34); those voting against were Councillors Brooks, Cunard, McDougall, Nash, Northeast, Oppler, Squires, Dr Walsh, Mrs Warr and Wells (10). Councillor Chapman (1) abstained from voting. Therefore the amendment was declared CARRIED.

The Chairman then opened debate on the substantive recommendation, as amended, and Councillor Nash proposed a further amendment, which was seconded by Councillor Dr Walsh to delete the words as shown crossed through and to add the words as shown in bold:

(1) the Council’s Local Plan should allocate 455 homes per annum for the next six years thereafter 655 from 2019 for each year to Ayling,2028-2029 inclusive;

(2) Delete: strategic allocations be determined in light of the outcome of a review of the SHMA Replace with: the proposed strategic housing allocation at Angmering be supported;

(3) Delete: the Council refers these matters to a future meeting of the Local Plan Sub-Committee Replace with: consideration of the proposed distribution of housing within the Local Plan with the exception of the strategic housing allocation at Angmering be deferred until the following has been completed and can be presented to Full Council:

(a) a possible re-routing of a realigned A29 to the west of

Westergate with the consequential changes for strategic housing allocations in the area; and

(b) a possible strategic housing allocation at Ford with consequential highway improvements

Add new recommendation (4): (4) the scale of any strategic allocations under (a) and (b)

above shall be presented in the form of a range of options related to the delivery of key infrastructure;

Subject to approval at the next meeting

30 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

Change substantive recommendation (4) to read (5): (5) the sum of up to £100,000 be agreed as a supplementary

estimate for the production of studies and other evidence to support the above. This is equivalent to £1.81 on a Band D property of the Council Tax.

Add new recommendation (6): (6) The Local Plan with the exception of any parts which would

conflict with (3) above be treated as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications having regard to the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.

Councillor Nash wished to point out that, in his view, the Council had

made a major error in not agreeing the housing numbers recommended by officers and he sought, by way of this amendment, to look at the spatial allocations in respect of Angmering to assist with land supply and he felt Ford held the key to solving some of the housing problems. He again highlighted that development at Ford would take pressure away from the Barnham, Eastergate and Westergate area and so detailed studies should be undertaken to examine objectively and seriously the realignment of the A29 as that was intrinsic to the regeneration proposals for Bognor Regis. A range of options should be brought back sometime in the future for sustainable housing with adequate infrastructure provision which would aid quality employment and attract new companies to relocate to the area. Members spoke for and against the amendment with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure stating that until a review of the SHMA data was undertaken and it was confirmed what quantum of housing would be required, that that would be the time to look at the housing allocations. It was his belief that this amendment was putting the cart before the horse. In speaking to the amendment as seconder, Councillor Dr Walsh advised the meeting that recommendation (6) was a belt and braces approach to secure planning in the interim as there was a very real possibility of speculative developers applying for and getting planning permissions. This was an attempt to preserve the current integrity of the planning process. He felt it was also important to open the debate for development at Ford, not on a scale as proposed by the Ford Eco Town some years previously but a much lesser number that could be accommodated on the brownfield land. Further comment was made that the amendment was seeking to open up other options for the Council to look at over the next 6 months to enable more sensible decisions to be taken in relation to housing and infrastructure..

Before turning to the vote, the seconder, Councillor Dr Walsh asked if

each revised recommendation could be voted on individually. The Chairman

Subject to approval at the next meeting

31 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

put this proposal to the vote and it was not accepted. However, Councillor Bower as the proposer of the original amendment then stated that he was prepared to accept the addition of the new recommendation (6) to the substantive recommendation, as amended. His seconder Councillor Mrs Brown, together with Councillors Nash and Dr Walsh as the proposer and seconder of this latest amendment all supported this approach. On this basis, the Chairman proposed that each recommendation should therefore be taken in turn.

On putting recommendation (1) to the vote, it was declared CARRIED. On putting the revised recommendation (2) to the vote, it was declared

LOST. On putting the revised recommendation (3) to the vote, it was declared

LOST. On putting the new recommendation (4) to the vote, it was declared

LOST. On putting recommendation (5) the vote, it was declared CARRIED. Before the vote on the new recommendation (6), it was agreed that a

further amendment was required as the vote on recommendation (3) had been lost. Therefore this was amended to delete the words struck through:

(6) The Local Plan with the exception of any parts which would conflict with (3) above be treated as a material consideration in the determination of planning applications having regard to the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.

On putting this revised recommendation (6) to the vote, it was declared CARRIED. The Chairman then put the substantive recommendations, subject to these further amendments to the vote and the Council

RESOLVED – That (1) the Council’s Local Plan should allocate 455 homes per

annum for the next six years thereafter 655 from 2019 for each year to 2028-2029 inclusive;

(2) strategic allocations be determined in light of the outcome of a review of the SHMA;

Subject to approval at the next meeting

32 Special Full Council – 29.05.13.

(3) the Council refers these matters to a future meeting of the Local Plan Sub-Committee;

(4) the sum of up to £100,000 be agreed as a supplementary

estimate for the production of studies and other evidence to support the above. This is equivalent to £1.81 on a Band D property of the Council Tax; and

(5) The Local Plan be treated as a material consideration in

the determination of planning applications having regard to the advice in the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Council then turned its attention to the second recommendation detailed under Minute 51, as follows:-

That the Council’s Local Plan be updated to give effect to the first resolution and be presented to a future meeting of Full Council via the Local Plan Subcommittee. As a consequence the proposed public consultation and publication of the Plan should be suspended and a new timetable proposed.”

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Infrastructure advised that, following on from what had been agreed in the foregoing debate, this recommendation had been superseded as the matter had been referred back to the Local Plan Subcommittee for a review of the SHMA. Finally, it had previously been agreed that Minute 46 of the meeting of the Local Plan Subcommittee held on 8 May 2013 (Publication of Local Plan Consultation) would be considered following the foregoing debate. It was agreed that this too had been superseded as the Publication of the Local Plan would not be going out to consultation at this stage. The Cabinet Member for Planning paid tribute to the hard work and commitment of the Planning Policy Team and thanked them for their efforts.

(The meeting concluded at 9.40 p.m.)