Application no. DC/23/1350
Filed on behalf of Stammerham Amenity Association and Save Rural Southwater
Executive Summary
For the reasons set out in more detail in the paragraphs which follow, Stammerham
Amenity Association (“SAA”) and Save Rural Southwater (“SRS”) respectfully submit that
HDC Planning Committee should refuse the application no. DC/23/1350 submitted by
Starbuild Ltd in relation to the land at The Copse, Worthing Road, Horsham RH13 9AT
(i) the application does not satisfy the relevant Horsham District Planning Framework
2015 requirements, in particular, amongst others, those contained in Policy 25 and Policy
26, which are a precondition to approval, and
(ii) the application conflicts with the current 2019 Southwater Neighbourhood Plan (2019-
2031), and
(iii) the application contains no adequate demonstration of water neutrality
On each of these grounds individually, and collectively, it is respectfully submitted the
application should be refused.
1. Statement of interest
The Stammerham Amenity Association (“SAA”) is a local residents group which was
established nearly 40 years ago, to help protect the rural quality of life in Tower Hill, Two
Mile Ash, Christ’s Hospital and Denne Park. The object of the Association is to maintain and
manage a forum for the discussion of matters of local interest, to consult with the Parish,
District and County Councils on matters regarding any future plans for the area and to put
forward a consensus opinion to the aforesaid authorities wherever appropriate.
Save Rural Southwater (“SRS”) is an informal group of local Southwater Parish and adjacent
residents whose interest in this proposal is to support and ensure the robust application of
the LDPF and Southwater NP Policies.
The SAA/SRS representation is, therefore, made by and on behalf of interested parties who
will be directly or indirectly, and adversely, affected by the proposed development.
2. The Starbuild Application
The proposed development for 33 dwellings and a 76 bed care home ((NB there is
conflicting information in the application documents on the actual no. of houses and care
home beds) is on derelict residential curtilage and grassland to the north of Southwater
village.
The proposed development land falls outside the Southwater built up area boundary (BUAB)
and the Horsham BUAB as delineated in the Horsham District Planning Framework 2015
(HDPF 2015) meaning Countryside Policies apply. While outside the two BUABs this land
falls within the area covered by the Southwater Neighbourhood plan (NP) meaning the
application must comply with the NP. Notwithstanding that the update to the HDPF Local
plan 2015 is overdue, the policies contained in that plan remain relevant considerations in
the context of the present application. Furthermore, the Southwater neighbourhood plan
2019-31 (“SNP”) is not as the applicants assert out of date and its policies remain relevant to
the present application. On the matter of the NPPF para 14 protections it is a matter of very
serious concern to the submitting associations that the Senior HDC Planning Officer who
dealt with the pre-app specifically advised the applicants to defer submission of this
application until after the second anniversary of the “making” of the SNP to enable the
applicants to seek advantage from the “tilted balance”.
3. Weight of the current (and emerging) District Plan and the Neighbourhood Plan
The review of the 2015 HDPF is overdue. For reasons which are sensible and well-known,
namely uncertainty on government housing targets and subsequently the issue of water
neutrality, the review commenced in 2018 was put on hold in 2021. It is understood that
work is in hand on an updated review with a view to publication of the Regulation 19
Document for consideration and consultation in the near/relatively near future.
Until the emerging HDPF has been duly processed and approved, the policies contained in
the current HDPF remain in force and must be taken as the applicable policies against which
the proposed development is to be judged. Notwithstanding any presumption in favour of
sustainable development in the absence of a five year housing land supply (currently HDC
only has a four-year supply), developers such as Starbuild should not be able to impose
their own visions and plans for local development on District Councils and local
communities who have not had the proper and prescribed opportunity to object to (or
support) the emerging HDPF and who have already voted in favour of the current Made
Southwater Neighbourhood plan (a plan which will need to be reviewed and possibly “re-
made” once the updated HDPF is published). To allow this speculative opportunism would
constitute a fundamental infringement of the rights of the individuals in the communities
affected and of proper democratic process. It is for district councils and parish councils to
determine, in consultation with the residents and communities they represent, and in
accordance with national, District and Parish policy, the local housing and facilities needs
and requirements. This is the very reasoning why the Conservative/LibDem coalition
Government legislated for devolution of local planning powers and in particular developed
and promoted the now widely adopted concept of the NP.
The 2015 HDPF remains in force, the Southwater (2019-2031) neighbourhood plan (NP)
remains in force, and in terms of what might be considered “presumptions of sustainable
development” there can be no objective assessment of “sustainability” unless the proper
and constitutional consultation process has been undertaken and objections (of which there
were many to the draft review abandoned in 2021) properly considered and addressed as
appropriate. Consequently the comments below assess the proposed development against
the current District Plan and Neighbourhood Plan.
The 2019-2031 Southwater Neighbourhood Plan (“SNP”) is the most recent local plan, is
current and its content should be supported and respected. What would be the point of
requiring parish councils to spend six-figure sums preparing such plans, if they can be
“ridden roughshod over” by speculative developers.
It is unclear why HDC does not have a current five-year housing land supply, or why
housebuilding in the already hugely overdeveloped district has been 147% percent of the
government target requirement over the last three monitoring years. It is assumed this is a voluntary assumption of extra housing which begs the question why this been accepted by
HDC. But for this overdevelopment might there have been a five-year housing land supply?
NPPF – presumption in favour of sustainable development
The Starbuild application relies on the presumption in favour of sustainable development
(NPPF para 11 (d)) which applies where local policies are out of date and/or no five-year
housing land supply can be demonstrated.
This presumption may however be displaced where a proposed development conflicts with
a neighbourhood plan and the adverse impacts of applying the presumption in favour would
significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits of the development. In the context of
this application, the very substantial and significant conflict with the Neighbourhood plan
will very clearly outweigh whatever limited benefits the proposed development might
promise to deliver.
In light of this NPPF provision, it is submitted that the Starbuild application should not be
entitled to rely on any presumption in favour of their proposed development.
4. Grounds for objection
SAA/SRS strongly object to the proposed development on the grounds, amongst others, that
it disregards and/or offends against established policies on development set out in the
current district and neighbourhood plans and demonstrably fails to satisfy the water
neutrality criteria.
4.1 HDPF 2015 – Strategic Policy considerations (all paragraph references below are to
paragraphs/strategic policies/chapters set out in the plan)
SP4 – Settlement expansion
The proposed development falls outside the Built-Up Area Boundary identified in the 2015
HDPF.
SP4.2 – Scale and Function
The level of expansion of the village of Southwater envisaged under the proposal is not
appropriate to the current scale and function of the Village as required under this policy.
The proposed expansion will further elongate the existing nuclear village centred around
Lintot Square, the Parish Church and the community sports fields into a very long multi-
centre ribbon development thereby further fracturing the existing community nucleus.
Southwater has already become one of the longest “ribbon villages” in the county and in the
country which is a strong reason for opposing the further elongation envisaged by the
proposed development.
SP4.5 – Maintaining and enhancing landscape features
The proposed development is not contained within an existing defensible boundary and will
not maintain and/or enhance the landscape character features of the rural location and the
rural land on which it will be built.
SP10.1 Rural Economic Development
The proposed development is located on what was substantially historically productive
rural/farm land which for many hundreds of years had been used for arable and livestock
grazing. The development will not contribute to sustainable farming enterprises or to the
wider rural economy. In fact, it will have precisely the opposite effect.
SP15 – Housing provision
The land west of Southwater is identified in the district plan as a strategic site for around
600 homes within the period to 2031. Since HDPF 2015 was adopted, development
permission has already been granted for 594 homes of which roughly half have been
completed and the remainder are under construction or are to be constructed. The proposal
for 33 dwellings and a residential care home is on land not previously identified in HDPF
2015 or in the SNP 2021
SP-17 Exceptions Housing Schemes
The proposed Starbuild development meets none of the requirements of the policy in
relation to sites in rural areas near existing settlements
SD10 – Southwater Strategic site.
The proposed development falls outside the Strategic site identified in policy SD10.
Chapter 9 – Conserving and Enhancing the Natural and Built Environment (Water quality)
There are already significant capacity issues with the existing local wastewater treatment
facilities. The proposed development would significantly increase the demand for
wastewater treatment and disposal. This aspect has not been adequately addressed in the
proposal.
Policy 24 – Environmental protection
The proposed development will add significantly to pollutant emissions, noise air and light
pollution on the proposed site where currently no such pollution factors exist.
Policy 25 – District Character and Natural Environment
Para 9.18 expressly recognises that the undeveloped nature of rural areas must be
protected. The proposed Starbuild development is located in a rural area outside the HDPF
2015 and SNP 2021 BUABs.
The proposed development entails carpeting rural land which is home to a wide variety of
wildlife species, a number of which are protected, with a substantial care home ( with
associated parking facilities, houses, roads, and potentially retail space and totally fails to
meet any of the applicable criteria set out in Policy 25. In particular it does not, and simply
cannot:
“protect, conserve and enhance the rural land on which the development is proposed” (per
requirement 1),
“Maintain and protect green infrastructure” (per requirement 2),
“Maintain and enhance biodiversity, safeguard existing species or provide net gains in
biodiversity” (per requirement 3).
Policy 26 – Countryside protection
The opening paragraph of the Policy reads;
“Outside built-up area boundaries, the rural character and undeveloped nature of the
countryside will be protected against inappropriate development. Any proposal must be
essential to its countryside location, and in addition meet one of the following criteria:”
The “essential” requirement is a precondition which must be met by any proposal and the
present proposal falls very far short of evidencing that it is “essential”.
Policy 26 goes on to stipulate that to be considered acceptable “development must not lead
to a significant increase in the overall level of activity in the countryside, and it must protect
and/or conserve and/or enhance the key features and characteristics of the landscape
character area in which it is located, including”
“…the areas ecological qualities…the pattern of woodlands and fields, hedgerows, trees,
waterbodies…”
The proposed development demonstrably fails these tests on all counts.
Policy 27 – Settlement Coalescence
The proposed development will lead to significant further coalescence between the
village of Southwater and the town of Horsham and will generate urbanising effects
including new roads, development along road corridors and a not insignificant increase in
road movements contrary to Policy 27.
Policy 31 – Biodiversity
Policy 31 seeks to ensure no biodiversity loss. The proposed development is located on
rural/farm land and adjacent to woodlands, hedges and treelines, currently home to a wide
variety of wildlife, aquatic life, bird life, flora and fauna. Species include deer, foxes, rabbits,
hedgehogs, herons, wild duck and geese, moorhens, birds of prey, rooks, nesting birds, bats,
and great crested newts, frogs and other amphibians, ancient woodlands, trees and
hedgerows. The loss of this habitat to development will render it largely if not entirely
devoid of all such irreplaceable biodiversity.
4.2 Southwater NP 2019-2031 – Core Principles considerations (All paragraph references
below are to paragraphs/strategic policies/chapters set out in the Southwater
neighbourhood Plan 2019-2031)
SNP1.1.b - The proposed development falls outside the Built Up Area Boundary identified in
the SNP
SNP2.2 - The proposed development offends the core principle that only the land west of
Southwater is allocated for the provision of 422-450 new residential units.
SNP4. - The proposed development offends the core principle of “keeping our roads
moving”. It will increase the number of vehicle entering and leaving the proposed site and
lead to an increase congestion on the B2237 in the vicinity of the Hop Oast Roundabout.
4.3 “Water Neutrality”
Southwater is within what has been identified as the most water supply stressed area in the
country, and that is before the additional demand from developments already approved
and under construction in the district comes on line. The proposed development is sited
exclusively on unoccupied land which currently has no, or negligible, water demand.
The applicants WN statement commits to achieving a target pppd water consumption of 85
litres, recognising that the average for the supply zone is 135 litres pppd. The calculation
submitted and relied on in the statement is entirely hypothetical. It assumes occupants will
flush toilets roughly half as many times per day as the national average, will have a daily
bath roughly 2 inches deep or a half full bath once every 7/8 days, will not shower for more
than 4 ½ minutes in total per day and will rarely wash their car/s.
THE PATENT FALLACY OF THIS APPROACH IS THAT BY RANDOMLY MANIPULATING WATER USE ALLOWANCES ACROSS DAILY TASKS, THE DEVELOPER CAN PUT FORWARD UNACHIEVEABLY LOW TARGET CONSUMPTION FIGURES WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE THAT
THESE TARGETS WILL BE MET IN PRACTICE. IN THIS APPLICATION THE FIGURES PUT
FORWARD ARE;
(i) FAR BELOW THE ACTUAL AVERAGE USE DATA (PER SOUTHERN WATER), AND
(ii) FAR BELOW THE BUILDING REGS PART G TARGET CONSUMPTION FIGURES,
AND
(iii) FAR BELOW THE CRAWLEY PILOT SCHEME ON REDUCING WATER
CONSUMPTION THROUGH THE USE OF FLOW RESTRICTORS WHICH WAS
JOINTLY COMMISSIONED BY HDC.
There is no incentive for developers to put forward realistic experience based consumption
figures based on properties already constructed and fitted with water saving devices since
this would make it much more difficult or impossible for them to demonstrate (as the NE
requirement stipulates) water neutrality.
FOR ALL THE DEVELOPERS THEORETICAL CALCULATIONS, PEOPLE WILL USE WHATEVER
AMOUNT OF WATER THEY WANT, IF RESTRICTORS ARE FITTED IT WILL JUST TAKE LONGER TO FILL THEIR BATHS, SINKS, BASINS AND WC CISTERNS OR WASH THEIR CAR/S. THERE IS NO PROPOSAL BY THE APPLICANTS TO MONITOR ACTUAL WATER USE IN THE PROPERTIES AND HDC, WHICH IS THE AUTHORITY TASKED BY NATURAL ENGLAND WITH POLICING AND ENFORCING WATER CONSUMPTION TARGETS SUBMITTED BY DEVELOPERS, MADE IT CLEAR IN THE RECENT WOODFORDS APPLICATION DECISION (DC/21/ 2180) THAT IT HAS NO INTENTION OF MONITORING ACTUAL WATER USE IN DEVELOPMENTS THEY APPROVE BASED ON DEVELOPERS PROPOSED WATER USE TARGETS. THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL AND FATAL FLAW IN THE APPLICATION OF THE VERY CLEAR OBJECTIVE OF WATER NEUTRALITY. WHAT COUNTS, IF WATER NEUTRALITY IS TO BE ACHIEVED, IS ACTUAL, NOT PURELY THEORETICAL, WATER USE.
And what is to stop the occupiers from removing the flow restrictors which we understand
is a simple plumbing task, and commonplace we understand in recently completed
developments in the district.
The application does not even get close to demonstrating as required by NE water neutrality
compliance.
5. Summary
The Starbuild proposed application has the undesirable and dangerous potential to usurp
the fundamental and crucial roles of the District Council and Parish Council to objectively
consider, consult upon and set realistic and sustainable local development targets.
There is no demonstration of water neutrality, far from it the pppd consumption targets are
purely hypothetical and totally unsupported by any evidence whatsoever of achievability in
practice. Furthermore there will be no monitoring, no penalty and no enforcement when
actual use, as it inevitably will, exceeds the target use submitted by the applicant and
accepted by HDC.
For the above reasons, amongst many others, outlined in the Executive Summary and in the
paragraphs above, it is submitted that the application should be refused.