|
HORSHAM DISTRICT LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
FRAMEWORK
SITE SPECIFIC
ALLOCATIONS OF LAND DPD
MATTER 1 –
GENERAL HOUSING STRATEGY AND NUMBERS ETC
Statement
on behalf of The Horsham Society
April 2007
Our locus
1 The Horsham Society is a registered charity, founded in 1955, with a
membership of over 1200. As an amenity society our primary concern is the
town itself but we have a legitimate interest in strategic and local
planning issues which will impact directly or indirectly on the town. Issues
concerning the Site Specific Allocations of Land lie at the heart of
ensuring high quality, sustainable and appropriate development which
properly takes account of the varied needs and local characteristics of our
diverse District
Horsham District Council’s Overall Position Statement (March 2007)
2 The Horsham Society supports in general terms the Council’s overall
position statement. In particular we agree that the appropriate approach to
resolving any issues that the Inspectors may identify regarding conformity
with PPS3, or estimated completion rates more generally, should be through
the proposals outlined in the Local Development Scheme 2007 for the review
of the Core Strategy and Reserve Housing Sites DPD.
Horsham Society Position
3 The Horsham Society welcomed the Inspectors’ decision that the Council’s
Core Strategy, with amendments, was sound. Whilst not agreeing with
everything, particularly the imposed rate of growth of housing provision, we
consider the policy as a whole to be in the interests of the District at
this time given the broad constraints (including the housing targets) within
which the Council has had to work . We believe the core policy, and the
associated proposed site specific allocations of land, should be deliverable
within the period of the plan.
4 The Society believes that together, in respect of Horsham town, these
provide an opportunity to manage significant additional housing development
within an understandable and defensible built up boundary, thus maintaining
a sense of place and identity so essential to community identity and
cohesion.
5 We would, therefore be concerned were the Inspectors to decide at this
stage to add sites or substitute alternative sites for those identified in
the Council’s proposals. Our concerns fall into four main areas: the need to
retain understandable and defensible built up boundaries; the need to avoid
coalescence of communities; the deficiencies of currently proposed
alternatives and the possibility of better future alternatives; and the
degree to which any further increase in land identified for development
(particularly housing) can sensibly be accommodated without a review of the
Core Strategy itself.
Defensible boundaries
6 In its previous submissions the Society has emphasised the need to
maintain and reinforce the separate identity of Horsham as a historic market
town serving the administrative, commercial and recreational needs of a
larger, predominantly rural, district. Clear, understandable and defensible
built up boundaries are an essential requirement to creating a sense of
place. The A264 to the North, the A24 to the West, and the railway and River
Arun to the South provide such boundaries and should not in our view be
breached. We were pleased with the Inspectors’ support for the continued
importance of strategic gaps between major settlements and the need to
create defensible boundaries to the new development South of Broadbridge
Heath. The position to the East of the town is less clear and it is
therefore all the more important that the built up boundary as currently
defined is maintained and reinforced. We therefore oppose any further
allocations of land for development that would breach these boundaries.
Avoiding Coalescence
7. The Society opposes the inclusion of any development sites which would
encroach upon, or otherwise threaten the strategic gaps between Horsham and
Crawley and Horsham and Southwater. The strategic gaps are a vital policy
tool in preventing the otherwise inexorable pressures for coalescence of
communities which would seriously undermine community identity and produce a
sprawling conurbation.
Deficiencies of currently proposed alternative sites and possible better
future ones
8 The majority of alternative sites close to the town abut, but are outside,
the proposed built up area. We support the Council’s reasons for rejecting
these as being deficient in terms of the core strategy. Furthermore, we
consider that there may be better, more suitable sites within the built up
boundary which may come forward through the work proposed in the LDS 2007.
An example is the Horsham Goods Yard (ADS35) which is undoubtedly suitable
for housing but where existing proposals may not represent the most
appropriate way in which to fully realise the redevelopment potential in
this area.
Accommodating further pressures for land release
9 We consider the current Core Strategy to be an appropriate and realisable
plan within the context and constraints at the time it was produced. But we
do not believe it to be capable of absorbing ad hoc bolt-on additions to
meet a requirement to identify release further land for release, or plan for
higher numbers of new homes. The Society believes strongly that once the
development that is currently proposed is complete Horsham town will have
largely exhausted opportunities for development within its natural
boundaries and any further urban extensions would seriously undermine its
sense of place, relationship to the surrounding countryside and community
identity and cohesion.
10 We therefore consider that the appropriate response to any requirement to
identify further land for development would be a review of the Core Strategy
which recognised the advantages of the creation of a new freestanding
settlement (para 38 of PPS3). For example, we have long supported the
proposed development at Kingsfold (ADS 105) as an alternative to the
enlargement of Horsham and this option, in our view, continues to offer
considerable advantages in terms of location and sustainability.
|