At the Regulation 19 HDC Planning meeting, held on Saturday 3rd February, Councillors Milne, Jeffrey, Blackburn and van der Borgh sat, looking less than enthusiastic, to answer questions posed by concerned residents.
The proposal, outlined by Councillor Milne, was shiny and enthusiastic, suggesting it fulfils everything Southwater residents ever dreamed of!
The reality? There is no protection for the village regarding critical concerns over water neutrality, no guarantee of a school materialising, serious questions remain over the affordability of houses and a denial that the government housing targets are advisory rather than mandatory. See full details below.
Save Rural Southwater will shortly outline clear guidelines to register your opposition to this plan. The deadline for objections is Friday 1st March, your voice is important!
Water neutrality
On water neutrality the Council/Cabinet member for planning and development Councillor John Milne made it clear that that HDC stands behind the 85l/p/d target consumption figure in their plan and will not seek to test/validate (or otherwise) this figure through a survey of actual water use in the district. Nor will HDC as required by Natural England monitor actual water use and implement enforcement for non-compliance. This position is supported by Southwater's remaining 3 elected Councillors.
So developments will continue to be approved across the district which will when completed be very far from water neutral, consuming far more than the developers are offsetting.
Councillor Milne said that developers are 'not happy' with the 85 l/p/d theoretical consumption target - in truth they are probably over the moon. All they need to do is fit a few inexpensive flow restrictors, fill in a form which says in effect people will only bath once a week, take a very short shower and only flush the toilet four times a day and they will be given permission. And they will only have to offset 85 l/p/d whereas the houses approved will use probably double that. In short, HDC, in supporting an entirely theoretical assumption on water usage and in failing in its duty to monitor and enforce, is taking the district's finite water supply to the casino.
See more details on water neutrality here: What is water neutrality >
Government Housing Targets
Councillors Milne and Jeffrey stated that the Government housing targets are mandatory. They are not. They are advisory, although local authorities must produce rigorous evidence to justify departure from the standard method assessed housing needs targets. Water Neutrality, a government policy, gives HDC the strongest possible hand to challenge the government target, however the flawed implementation of the policy by the Department for environment (Natural England) and local planning authorities in our district including HDC has not only undermined the grounds for challenging targets but has also exposed the district to very significant risk of water supply exhaustion.
A New School for Southwater?
A cornerstone of the May 2023 election platforms of all the Southwater District councillors, they made it clear that they have no control over whether or not a new school will be delivered as part of the further development of the village and cannot give any committment that it will.
Rapid growth of the village
On the scale of the further development of the village, the councillors confirmed that their plan will impose “at least 1000” new homes on the village so no upper limit. Councillor van der Borgh showed a slide of the expanded village footprint in the new Berkeley Homes plan (which is what HDC has adopted and included in the draft district plan). He did not compare it with the ultimately withdrawn Berkeley Homes plan for 1500 homes which the village very strongly opposed last year. The expanded village footprints in the two plans are strikingly similar. Yes, the new plan provides a bit more buffer on the western edge of the development but conveniently the amount of land allocated for a school (should one ever be built) is reduced in the new Berkeley Homes plan. Allowing more space for housing. Don't be fooled, for “at least 1000” homes read "up to 1500 homes".
Affordable housing
On affordable housing, the deputy Council Leader, unprompted, acknowledged that Berkeley Homes are comparatively expensive. How does that help to address the real demand in this district for affordable homes? In reality it does quite the opposite.
Hospitals
Regarding Hospitals (the plan states “The need for a hospital has not been identified as required in this Plan”) the Councillors brushed this crucial question off by baldly saying Hospitals are not within the District Council remit, houses are. They are quite happy to build and further overload a health system which is already critically inadequate to deal with current need, let alone the additional need generated by the new housing they are imposing.
How long will Southwater be 'under development'?
On slow build out rates by developers, Councillor Milne said councils had no power to direct the pace of development, acknowledging that developers will often slow build rates to keep their profit margins high. Exactly what is happening in Southwater where Berkeley Homes has stopped building on the remaining 250 plus Broadacres homes because they cannot sell their existing stock of completed homes. Allowing the developers to prolong the development disruption to the village for as long as they like purely to protect their profits. Planning authorities can and should impose build time restrictions when granting development permission and suitably enforceable “use it or loose it “ provisions.
Who cares about Southwater?
Save Rural Southwater posed the following question (along with others relating to some of the points above) to the district Councillors in advance of the meeting and raised it from the floor at the meeting;
"Having vigourously endorsed the revival of the Berkeley Homes plan for the village, what if anything do our councillors think they have to offer to the many residents who wish to object to the designation of Southwater for at least 1000 additional homes.”
Save Rural Southwater has nothing against our Councillors personally. They are doubtless very nice and motivated people. However, none of them live in the village/Parish, and the proposed development in Southwater will have no impact whatsoever on them individually or on their local communities.
In their supporting speeches at the draft Plan meeting in Horsham on 11 December 2023 (the meeting which by a strong majority approved the plan), one Southwater councillor said the expansion (of what could be up to 1500 homes) would result in the village being “nicely rounded off”. Another of our councillors, having acknowledged that “Southwater is a popular village that "prides itself on its rural location" and that residents “regularly access the surrounding countryside” declared to be “pretty pleased with this plan for Southwater”. Our third councillor stated that the plan “is the best way of delivering the certainty that Southwater needs”.
The only response to the question posed above was from one Councillor who said he cared for the village and grew up playing cricket here. The question was not answered, perhaps unsurprisingly. "Turkeys do not vote for Christmas”. Indeed, why should our Councillors, who so strongly support the plan for the village, and who could very easily have voted against the plan or abstained, support any residents who wish to oppose their vision for our village?
