Horsham District Council- Written evidence (IER0001)
The Council is responding and providing evidence to the following questions asked by the committee - 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10. The remaining questions are considered to be more appropriately responded to by the development industry.
No, it is not considered changes are clearly communicated, nor are they communicated in a timely manner. The details below discuss the Councils experience of both water neutrality and biodiversity net gain.
Water neutrality
Horsham District Council received no warning the Position Statement from Natural England (outlining the potential impact new development is thought to have on Habitats and Species protected by the Habitat Regulations 2017) was being issued. The Council had no time to prepare itself or developers of what the likely impacts would be and how, if at all, they could be addressed through the planning process. Natural England simply advised, “you are the competent authority, you interpret the Position Statement and implement as necessary.”
The Council sought immediate Counsel advice on this at significant cost, which advised that the Council must adhere to the Environmental Regulations and consequently the Position Statement, which set out that new development should not increase the demand for water above existing levels of water abstraction (in other words, achieve water neutrality) in order to comply with our legal obligations. In Horsham District, the water neutrality Position Statement has stalled the local plan and planning permissions for over 2600 new homes as well as businesses and community facilities. Impacts are wider than this as 4 other local authorities (Crawley Borough, Chichester District, the South Downs National Park and West Sussex County council) are also affected.
Biodiversity net gain
The Council welcomes the recent announcement to delay the implementation for small sites until next April. However, we are very concerned that we still do not have any detailed information or guidance as to how the requirement for large sites will be implemented. This becomes law in November this year.
Local Planning Authorities and developers cannot fully prepare for the requirements if we do not know what the requirements are and how they will be implemented. This has not stopped Horsham District Council from seeking to put measures in place, including investigating the capacity for development sites to deliver net gain, and the potential for land in the District to provide this. However, it is difficult to know if the measures that are being put in place will be in any way sufficient to allow effective and timely implementation of the regulations, and therefore ultimately deliver the aims of the legislation in improving the environment.
Is sufficient support available to help developers and promotors fulfil their responsibilities?
No, it is not considered there is sufficient support available to help developers and promoters.
Using the example of water neutrality, Horsham District Council have worked incredibly hard (in partnership with other areas affected by water neutrality where necessary) to draw together FAQs and guidance for developers to support them in submitting sufficient information on water neutrality, to accompany their planning applications. We received no technical help from any stakeholder, and there was no previous water neutrality examples to draw on as this is the first area in the UK to be affected by this requirement. We are not water neutrality experts, but in the absence of any help or funding from any government agency we have had to upskill and buy in resources to ensure the planning system keeps moving, as much as it can do.
To reiterate our concerns to the previous question, the delays in any detailed guidance on the implementation of biodiversity net gain is not supporting developers and promoters in bringing forward their schemes.
5 . Is there sufficient coherence between different environmental regulation?
Horsham District Council consider there is sufficient coherence between the different areas of legislation itself. The difficulties arise when there is a lack of understanding of how the regulations should be implemented and insufficient resource, expertise and guidance to help administer the system.
How could regulations be administered in a more systematic and coherent way?
The different bodies; in particular Natural England and the Environment Agency need to work closer together to understand the implications of any guidance or requirement that they issue, and communicate their position on matters early on.
The Council will carefully consider the recently published DULHC consultation on Environmental reporting (which closes on 9 June) and will comment on whether the proposals or ideas assist in this respect.
6. What impact do Government bodies such as the Environment Agency and Natural England have on planning and development decisions?
Water neutrality
The impact of the water neutrality Position Statement, issued by Natural England, to Horsham District (and the wider Sussex North Water Resource zone) has had a significant impact on the district and has had a notable impact on the ability of the District to make a significant economic recovery post covid. Farmers cannot extend or change their operations, businesses cannot expand, community uses cannot find a new home and homes are not being built.
- The Position Statement has significantly delayed the ability to progress the Local Plan
- It has delayed the referendums on 4 Neighbourhood Plans through no fault of the neighbourhood plan forums who have spent significant time and effort and expense in creating these. The local communities are therefore not able to benefit from 25% of CIL receipts.
- It is delaying the delivery of two large strategic housing sites with a total of 3,360 homes yet to be delivered as well as a neighbourhood centre and business park. We currently have applications for these strategic sites totally 413 homes which we cannot progress
- 20 further major housing schemes have been refused or delayed totalling 1,735 homes
- It has had a significant impact on SME builders with many minor applications delayed or refused on water neutrality grounds only (113 dwellings for 1 – 9 dwelling schemes)
- In total we have 2,261 homes which would likely otherwise have been granted in the last 1.5 years, and more which are awaiting the solution before submitting
- 400 sqm small commercial development delayed or refused – small start ups and businesses wanting to expand
- 30 gypsy pitches delayed or refused
- 5 campsites or holiday lets delayed or refused
- 2 community use buildings delayed or refused
- Agricultural and equestrian developments delayed or refused
- An unintended consequence of water neutrality is that we have 28 separate bore holes being proposed in Horsham District to facilitate development seeking to use their own private water supply which they say will not have an impact on the supply at Hardham. This has yet to be proven.
Whilst Natural England now appear to be much better resourced and are actively engaging in the water neutrality solution, much of this impact could have been avoided or significantly reduced if the likelihood of the Position statement had been communicated at a much earlier stage, and the Councils were able to seek advice and prepare.
How effectively do these bodies work together?
It does not appear that Natural England and the Environment Agency work effectively together of their own accord. The experience of Horsham District Council is that they come together when they are brought together by Defra or where the Councils impacted by water neutrality have brought them together to discuss matters. An example of this is in relation to the borehole proposals referenced above – Natural England were broadly content with this approach providing there was no direct impact on sites protected by the Habitat Regulations. The Environment Agency have however raised concerns about a proliferation of boreholes in terms of the wider cumulative impact on water supplies, the environment and other water licensing regimes. Ultimately meetings were instigated by the Local Authority to ensure that this issue was discussed and a common position agreed in order to help the determination of planning applications.
7. What role does Natural England play in monitoring and implementing these regulations?
It is understood that Natural England monitor the impact on protected sites, however no evidence base has been published regarding the impact on Hardham from the abstraction of water by Southern Water. We have therefore seen no evidence of this monitoring. Whilst the precautionary principles embedded with the Habitat Regulations 2017 require water neutrality to be achieved prior to the publication of this evidence, in order to meet our legal obligations, the lack of published evidence has led to confusion and challenges from the development industry who feel they lack clear empirical evidence and reasoning that require their proposals to be water neutral.
The implementation of the regulations from our experience has been without warning and with significant consequences as outlined in question 6
How does Natural England’s involvement affect the delivery of new development?
Please see response to question 6
8. To what extent are the information needs of the planning system proportionate?
We consider that the information needs of the environmental regulations, to support planning applications, are proportionate. The system requires scrutiny, certainty and transparency to ensure we are protecting and improving our environment. There is already significant public concern that new development is environmentally damaging, and the loss of available information would add fuel to this particular issue. Should the requirement for information be watered down it would not demonstrate with certainty development would not have a harmful impact on our protected species and environment.
The recently closed DLUHC consultation on proposed changes to the NPPF requested feedback on a proposed change that would lower the level of evidence / information required to support the preparation of local plans. HDC was broadly supportive of this proposal. Currently, the evidence to support the preparation of Local Plans is often expected to be regularly updated to consider the potential impact of small changes to government policy or local changes of circumstance within the District. In general these evidence base updates have little bearing on the eventual content of the plan over the original. Reduction in the need for costly (in terms of time and financial resource) updates to the information and evidence informing the local plan would in our view help to speed up plan making and the subsequent implementation of development.
9. How far do the key actors in implementing environmental regulations have sufficient resources to carry out their responsibilities?
The key actors do not have sufficient resources to carry out their responsibilities.
Horsham District Council, as the Competent Authority for the consideration of water neutrality in relation to the Habitat Regulations, did not have in-house expertise to manage the issue. Consultants are being used to assist with planning applications, and recruitment to a water neutrality project manager post has been difficult, with limited funding available and no initial candidates for the role. The Sussex North Water resource area has received no central Government funding to assist with a solution, unlike nutrient neutrality.
Natural England were initially wholly under resourced to assist and comment on planning applications. Whilst this is much improved there are still some delays, such as with local plan engagement and more technical planning applications. The Environment Agency were not prepared for the significant increase in the number of borehole applications, which is a direct consequence of the water neutrality Position Statement from Natural England.
Horsham District Council has no in-house ecology expertise and is reliant on contracts with consultancies to supply this vital expertise. There are an insufficient number of candidates in the market to be able to attract an experienced in-house ecology expert which will assist the Council to implement and monitor Biodiversity Net gains.
Planning officers are incredibly stretched with a requirement to assess water neutrality as part of planning applications, and new biodiversity net gain requirements coming in in November. The increase in planning fees will likely assist with this, but the Government cannot expect a significant increase in performance with immediate effect. It will take time and money to recruit to already hard to fill roles, and it will take time for the planning fee increase to become noticeable in budgets. Any fee increase cannot be coupled with an immediate requirement to improve performance when Councils need to see that increase first and recruit to much needed roles to manage additional environmental responsibilities.
10. Are there further significant changes which would improve the system?
There needs to be sufficient funding of Government agencies to be able to research and publish their findings on the environmental impacts of our protected sites, and to do so in a timely manner that allows issues to be identified early on, and therefore rectified before more extensive and complex solutions are required There also needs to be better funded research into innovative solutions to matters such as water neutrality. We can only continue to provide improved impacts for our environment if we have the research, and the solutions are considered through changes to planning, environmental and building regulations.
There needs to be sufficient funding to be able to monitor the outcome of biodiversity net gain, so this can be improved upon as the initial outcomes are made.
March 2023