Transcript

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the planning meeting for Fortune North. Before we get going, I recognise that there's a bit of passion about today's application. This is not a public meeting. You're welcome to be here, but I would ask you please to refrain from any cheering or whatever it is you might feel you'd like to say from the floor. You're not actually allowed to do so. Emergency exits, if their fire alarm goes off, we will assemble at the bandstand. Can you make sure your phones are off, please? A reminder to members to on and off your mics when you start and finish. Speakers will be held to time, and Liz will be monitoring that. I think we're ready to go, so I'll ask the officers to introduce themselves. Good evening, Jason Alks, Principal Planning Officer. Good evening, I'm Adrian Smith, major applications team leader. Good evening, Emma Parks, the Head of Development and Building Control. Claire Brown, Principal Planning Sister. And Liz Fennec, Democratic Services Officer. Okay, thank you, we'll all hear the presentation. Okay, thank you, good evening. Point out, sorry, sorry, I'm sorry, I'm getting out of myself. There are other matters to do here. Apologies, please. So, apologies have been received from Councillor Tony Bevis, Martin Boffee, Warwick Calliwell, Tony Hobben, Richard Landau, Dennis Livingston, Jay Mercer and John Olsen. Thank you. Thank you, anybody else with any the minutes for the last meeting? Now, I wasn't actually here. So, let me put that forward as me in being an absence. If you could please agree that they are correct. Thank you very much. Dictorations of members interest, please. That's the biggest. Yes, thank you, Chairman. I'd like to declare an interest as I'm a parish Councillor. And they are speaking this evening, but I did not take part in any discussions at parish council. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman, I don't think it's necessary, but just for the record, I have played golf, watching golf. As you know, I don't play golf anymore. I used to play, I wasn't ever a member. Thank you, Councillor Keitchen. Councillor Frank. Sorry, I have to declare an interest in that my three children play for autumn hockey club and have for several years, and I have been advised that I need to recuse myself or I should recuse myself from this due to my links. So, I, with sadness, need to say, I'm here, but now need to leave. Thank you very much. Councillor Emery. I need to declare that I do occasionally play golf at Ocean Golf Club. Thank you very much. Thank you. Anybody else? Good. That's all noted. Thank you. There are no announcements. So, we'll move on to the application, DC23-117-8, Fortune Golf Bar, Denmark, Fortune. Presentation, please. Thank you. Thank you. So, before I start, I point out an error on page 18, paragraph 1.17. I prefer to a Homewood Farmhouse. This should be Homewood Farmhouse, apologies for that error. So, here we see the location plan of the site, highlighted in red. The Ocean Golf and Fitness site is located south in Fortune and northeast of Southwater in the countryside location. The golf club is located east of the 824 and the Wurthing Road and extends from 55.57 hectares. The golf club is an 18-hole golf course with a driving range and a clubhouse. The site is accessed from an access road up Wurthing Road, which also serves Ocean Football Club and three dwelling south of the existing clubhouse. These dwellings are not part of the proposal and would be retained on site. Two public rides away go through the site from north to south, right of way number 166 runs through the site, and to the south of Byway known as Green Lane Christmas Cross site from east to west. The sounding area, the Hoppe site lies to the west, which includes a council's park and ride parking area, an immunity tip. This shows some of the features in and around the sites. I've highlighted Den Park and Gate Cottage, the northeast and northwest of the site. Gate Cottage is a great two-lesson building and Den Park also includes great two-lesson properties. There are also further-lesson buildings nearby. I've also shown the three properties to the centre of the site, which are not part of the proposal. These are Harwood Farmhouse, Home Farm Cottage and Harwood Cottage. If approved, the development would be built around these properties. So, this is an aerial photograph of the site, taken in 2018. Should note, it doesn't include Washington Football Club, which was hadn't been built yet. This shows a golf club with its golf courses mainly to the south of the sites with some water to the north and also located with the woodland area to the east. So, it's just site photo. It just shows the golf courses to the south. This shows a golf club building and the existing access to the golf club from Worthy Road. This access is proposed to retain for continued access and would also allow access to renew sports facilities being proposed. Turning to the proposal, this shows the indicative master plan for the proposal. Proposal is for outline permission to develop the site for up to 800 dwellings. These are all located mainly to the south of the site. The scheme reserves all matters with the exception of access. The new access would be from Worthy Road, opposite the existing access to the Park and Rides site. Detail designs are included for the access. The proposal also includes provision of new sports and edge of facilities located to the northern part of the site, discussing these facilities in detail later. The proposal also includes a new local centre located just south of the new access onto Worthy Road. Open spaces also proposed with allotments, ponds, areas of play and landscaping. The scheme retains the rights of way throughout the site and includes off-site improvements to cycling pedestrian links. The scheme also includes 35% affordable housing, which equates to up to 280 dwellings. 5% self and custom build is also included. So now go through the parameters of plans. In the vendor planning commission is granted the scheme would need to be broadly in accordance with these plans. This first plan shows the land use parameters plan. The areas in yellow are the proposed residential parcel, so you can see mainly to the south of the site. The new local centre is shown in light blue, which is just south of the proposed access. The new sports facilities are shown in pink on this plan to the north, and the green areas show retained and proposed areas of landscaping and open space. This plan shows the access and movement parameter plan, shows the existing right of way and purple which runs through the site from north to south. The existing access to the golf club is retained as a discussed, and this would allow access to new sports facilities as well as access to the existing football club and the three retained houses. New access to pros from Worthy Road as indicated on the plan there. This will serve the housing to the south and the new local centre. Here we see the green infrastructure parameter plan. This shows retained areas as well as proposed areas of landscaping. To the east of the site, the proposal retained the existing woodland and golf courses. Painted woodland is around Horsham golf club, which is shown here. This is not part of the application. The scheme includes allotments proposed to the eastern side of the site, as well as neighbourhood and locally equipped areas of play throughout. This is the density parameter plan for the new dwellings. Opposes a higher density of housing to the western and northern parts of the proposal, shown in dark blue there, with a lower density to the central and eastern sections. Here we see the building height's parameter plan. To the western side of the sites, in the dark blue there, use the proposals for residential dwellings, buildings up to three stories high. The central section in light blue would be up to two and a half stories, and the new sports buildings are shown up to two stories. Here we have the details of the access, which has been submitted as part of the proposal. This shows the detailed layout of the new access for sites located opposite the existing access to the park and ride sites. The proposal includes new traffic lights with new feeder lanes and will perform a new crossroads. A new pedestrian footway is proposed to the western side of Worthing Road. This links to a new cycle and pedestrian footway within the proposed site, which would go around the western side of the site. This shows the indicative layout for the new sports and leisure facilities. This includes one, so it would include a new home for horse and hockey club. This would include two hockey pitches, practice area, change of rooms and classroom facilities, with a multi-use pitch in a suitable range of other uses when not used for hockey. This also includes a new clubhouse comprising a bar, cafe, terrace bar/restaurant, golf shop, co-working spaces, a gym, nursery, parcel collection and a new direct driving range. The clubhouse would include a golf college, which is an educational facility for six form age students, respite or career in golf. This scheme also includes a permanent home for Warren Clark golfing dreams. This is a charity that works with disabled and disadvantaged groups through sports. The scheme also includes a car park, mini-adventure golf course, putting green and the part retention of the existing golf course. As outlined in the report, the sports and leisure offer is a clear benefit of the proposal. This is a significant material consideration and determination of this application and is discussed in detail in the report. The other benefits of the proposal includes revision of up to 800 dwellings, which would help with our current lack of five-year housing rights supply. This includes up to 280 affordable units, which is a significant benefit towards the housing, affordable housing shortfall in the district. Other benefits include improvements to rights away, open space, local centre, employment, provision, community assets, BNG improvements and civil contributions. All benefits have been fully taken into consideration in the planning balance. As outlined in the report, an unbalanced proposal is considered unacceptable with a harm clearly outweighing the benefits. The scheme is recommended for nine reasons for refusal I set out in the report, which I have summarized here for you. Of note is the reasons for refusal relating to principal development, water-neutral neutrality, landscape harm, active travel and education division. In terms of the principal development, the site is not allocated for development in the local plan or the south water neighbour plan and is outside the built a barrier boundary in a countryside location. Under the NPBF in situations where a council does not have a five-year housing land supply, paragraph 11 requires decision-makers to apply a presumption in favour of sustainable development. This is unless any of the policies in the NPBF that protect areas of particular importance provide a clear reason for refusal. This relates to areas at risk of flooding and protected habitat sites. The current proposal is not to demonstrate that it is water-neutral or that it would not result in flooding issues. In addition, the proposal is contrary to the core principles of the south water neighbour plan which is less than five years old. Therefore, the tilted balance in favour of sustainable development is not triggered in this instance. The second reason refusal relates to lack of water neutrality proposal. We use the services of an independent hydrologist to help us assess water neutrality. It is accepted that this scheme includes four portholes which were not hydrologically connected to the aquavists that serve harden. However, our hydrologist has commented that proposal has yet to demonstrate that there would be sufficient yield to service the development of this site for its lifetime. In addition, there are still outstanding issues regarding potential contamination of the water source and water quality as such water neutrality has not been demonstrated at this time. The third reason refusal relates to landscaping impact of the proposal. This is based on the detailed comments of our landscape architect as I've outlined in the report. The officers stated that there are significant concerns that this is not the right location for this scale of development. Significant concerns have also been identified that the site is not sustainably located to maximize active travel. The development will therefore result in the high-risk line lines on motorized travel by private car. Their education provision, the education authority, have identified that there is a lack of secondary provision in the district and have also raised concerns that the proposal is unsustainable located in relation to nearby primary schools. Officers have also raised concerns in relation to funding impacts, noise impacts, mineral safeguard, guarding and the absence of a legal remit to secure the package of benefits as outlined in the report. The proposal is therefore recommended for a fusal. Firstly Nigel language. Chairman, Councillors, I'm from the Keep Den Hill Green community group. Over 3,500 people have signed up a petition objecting this application. 53% said their main concerns were the loss of green space or impact on wildlife. Horsham residents are passionate about preserving the rural landscapes of Den Hill for the physical and mental well-being of current and future generations as well as allowing the existing rich biodiversity to survive and thrive. The proposed development has not been allocated for housing in the South Water Neighbour Plan and breaches a multitude of other planned policies. The 83% of South Water residents that voted for their plan feel that this will be an undemocratic stabbing the back. It will become an urbanized area, orphaned from South Water and by breaching the barrier of the A24 it would kickstart the inexorable coalescence of Horsham and South Water. 37% of our respondents were most concerned about the strain on infrastructure and travel safety. The Worthing Road is probably the most dangerous route into Horsham. The narrow discontinuous pavements bring pedestrians within the hair spritz of vehicles travelling at 40 miles an hour or more. Only the brave cycle up towards the Blind Summit. Frustrated drivers take chances when overtaking, jeopardising cyclists' safety and endangering oncoming vehicles. The safety upgrade would be prohibitively expensive and have been ruled out by highways authority. Golfers feel their game is being kicked into the rough to make way for hockey and houses. The club is thriving with over 450 members, competitions held, handicaps established and this would effectively be lost under the proposed development. The scenic and challenging course and affordable fees pay and play visitors from Horsham and beyond and its design keeps it open when other local courses are waterlogged. Being so close to Horsham it is a course we cannot afford to lose if we are serious about building a sustainable future. And wouldn't Warren Clark Golfing Dreams and a Golf Academy both be better served by the current configuration of 9 and 18 holes. I think, and I hope everyone in this room would welcome that. Please start winding up Nigel that time. So Councillors, we would encourage you to oppose this unwanted application. Thank you. Thank you, Nigel. Stuart Spence. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I vehemently oppose this 800-house scheme. This would be like placing a new village, the size of Warrenum or Slinfold, into valuable green space between Horsham and Southwater without any supporting infrastructure causing a further overload of services and degrading the quality of life of those living in Horsham now. It is HDC's role to coordinate and match future housing needs with sufficient infrastructure and services, i.e. schools, doctors, hospital, social care, public transport, roads, sewage treatment, mental health services, etc. If planners cannot create a match, then services will be further overwhelmed. This pressure has already degraded critical services to a dangerous, life-threatening level. Hospitals are full and failing. A coroner in 2023 stated that Red Hill Hospital capacity does not meet demand, and I quote, The trust is placing patience at risk of early death. Pupils, pupils are already being bust out of area, and some water says, and I quote, It can facilitate the extra sewage load. Where facilitate actually means releasing raw sewage into the river Arren, as they do now, which winds its way down to the sea at Little Hampton. I know it's not the fault of the developer for the underfunding of regional services. That's the government fault. But we have to recognise the current core state of services and say no to further mass development like this and continue to say no until services are invested in and brought back to a fit-for-purpose state. It is, if this scheme is allowed to go ahead, I really have to ask all of you here. What is the point of having a local plan which reflects the concerns and wishes of the local community? Thank you. Perfectly timed. Thank you, Stuart. Joshua Powell, please. Thank you very much, Chair. Joshua Powell, conservation biologist and PhD candidate at Zoological Society of London. I'd just like to briefly outline a few concerns pertaining to the existence of suitable infrastructure. As heard, there are concerns that the proposal does not meet net water neutrality requirements in regard to potential impacts on protected sites in the Arren catchment. Noting that Horsham District Council notes that, quote, All new development will require some additional water. This additional demand will need to be offset by reducing the demand for water in existing development. Do we take it there for that Horsham District Council has somehow managed to reduce the equivalent water usage of 360,000 liters per day? I'd be very interested to see the evidence for this. Second, noting with concern that the location has a single road connecting it to town, Wurthing Road, which is a single carriage way with no possibility to expand due to housing on either side. Noting the existing levels of air pollution on Wurthing Road records of nationally endangered species killed in RTA's on it and the difficulty of access for cyclists during peak flows raises concerns whether Wurthing Road can realistically accommodate additional vehicles for 800 households. Thank you very much. Thank you Joshua. Hello everyone, I'm Dawn Osborne. I'm Chair of Lauren Clark Golf and Dreams and on mum to Warren and Alison that both got autism and a learning disability. Warren has also got scoliosis, a curvature of the spine and wears medical shoes. He's got global delay. Just to give you a brief overview of my upbringing and I was in the care system at seven years old. I left school with no education. I couldn't read and write. I've taught myself to read and write. I'm educated to a level three and both my children unfortunately due to domestic violence by their biological dad. We ended up in a woman's refuge. Both of my children are 27 and 24. Warren have both been very well educated. Warren's a personal trainer, a golf professional and a multi sports coach. He's got a level three in business. He's got a level three in care and so is my son and my daughter Alison and myself. We've worked very hard as a family charity and we've worked since 2014 after being let down with Manning's Heath Golf Club in Horsham of a promise of an inclusive centre to have a permanent home. Paul Taylor, your very own sport development officer, he said he didn't want to lose us out of Horsham. We worked tirelessly with Paul doing weekly bike ability, we went for wheels for all sessions. We volunteer our time in holiday clubs with Paul. We've been offered money and we say no, keep it in Horsham. We're also a Special Olympics Great Britain delivery partner for multi sports and if the government agree 2031 holding their world games in Great Britain, so wouldn't it be great to have these multi sports at Horsham area. With all the threats of day services being cut and closed down, Storford Centre, Burnside, we work with them all, QE2 School. People are left with no opportunities but apart from going out to the day service, day in and day out, they don't have any other opportunities, evenings and weekends. People don't go to bed at four o'clock. They want to have employment and training opportunities that are relevant to us and being a laser inclusive education provider. We can help these people. The laser group have been true to their words since 2014. They've made pledges and they're very true and honest people and it's so much more than housing. Sport England support this plan and we really desperately need a permanent home for wearing cloth and jeans and the future of golf has sport England, so there's actually nine whole calls because people are so busy and beyond the housing, we will pledge to be open 365 days of the year. We work with Muslim communities, LGBT communities, African, Polish, Caribbean, elderly. We serve them all and we're a well-being NHS provider and we want to bring these services into Horsham if we have a home to be able to deliver this and to support and create employment and training opportunities and we'll also be a day service provider and pick up where the cuts are being made and we're not asking for Horsham District Council for any money. So I would urge you to kindly consider apart from looking beyond the housing to support local people and as Special Olympics say, please choose to include. We work hard and we're open honest and transparent with Horsham District Council and we pull and we work shoulder to shoulder and there's no, I'm here of my own accord tonight. Nobody's asked me, I'm here because I believe in it and I believe that we will get our true bargain if you choose to include us. Thank you. Thank you, Dorne. Thank you very much. Chris Poland, please. All right, Dorne, glad to press it. No, you don't need to press anything. We trust elected officials like yourself to provide us with the facilities we need. Today we need your help and support to deliver a new home. Hockey has been displaced during the 1990s with a move from grass to Atreturf. We now play on multiple sites with unacceptable access to facilities. Here are some facts. In 2009, promise each leisure centre transferred to Atreturf to Tambridge School without secure provision for parking or changing facilities for Horsham Market Club. In 2018, the Bridge Letter Centre, which is council funded, told HHT that we can no longer use its facilities. We now go to toilet in Tesco's. In 2022, Tambridge School relayed their pitch but could not afford to nuke dugout shelters, so now we all get wet. In 2023, England Hockey confirmed that Tambridge School pitches are no longer meet the facilities stand off for national league matches, meaning we cannot play ladies first club matches there. In 2023, we failed to be shortlisted for an England hockey talent centre because our facilities are unacceptable. This year, Horsham District Council's legal team is supporting Horsham Sports Club to sell the groundsman cottage for approximately half a million pound. None of this money will go to the hockey section. Our children need a ground with shelter and toilets and adult players need best-in-class facilities to meet legal requirements. Our club needs a social space next to pitches and together, we need a home. We support this fully funded solution combining multi-sport into a sporting community. This council does not include a solution with its local plan for Horsham Market Club. It is not identified in any sites. There is no funding provided. There is no alternative plan. We have one and we support it. Now you must decide, either you provide a site in front of facilities we need in your local plan, or you allow us to deliver our own ground that is fully funded in our plan by voting yes at this planning meeting. Thank you. Thanks very much, Chris. Edward All, please. My name is Edward All. I am the director of Horsham Golf and I thank you to the opportunity to present our proposals this evening. You have heard the importance of what we are proposing this evening from some of the organisations involved in our scheme. It is the case that however well-located or appropriate, large-scale development is controversial. However, without it, facilities such as those proposed will not be funded and will not be delivered. It is also the case that whilst opposition to new development is widespread, wherever it is proposed, the level of support this application has attracted me to is rare. The questions you are being asked this evening are straightforward. These are, do you want to provide a long-term home for Horsham Hockey, a scheme supported by Baseball England and England Hockey? Do you want to provide a home for warm-clark golfing dreams, a much-needed charity that addresses the chronic under-supply of services for disabled and disadvantaged children? Do you want to provide a home for the Golf College, an educational service institution for sit-form students aspiring to a career in golf? Do you want to provide housing when it is in such short supply and will be for the foreseeable future? This will include 280 affordable homes in the context of a waiting list in Southwater and Christ Hospital alone of 296 households and an affordability ratio of over 13 times salary. Do you want to do this on a site that is capable of delivering water-neutral development, the feasibility and sustainability of which has been demonstrated in detail through reports admitted to offices? In recognition that significant housing numbers must be delivered somewhere in Horsham. Are the perceived issues raised by offices of delivering it in this location outweigh by the significant benefits of the co-location of these important facilities together and the delivery of these facilities in the short-term at no cost to the public purse? If the answer is yes, you have the power to grant planning permission for this development. If the answer is no, they will not be delivered and you will need to consider how these urgent and vital facilities can be funded. The draft local plan does not propose a strategy to address this. As such, we urge you to reject the officer recommendation and work with us to deliver this important development for the benefit of Horsham and the wider district. Thanks very much, Edward. Councillor Jeff Villas from the parish, Councillor, five minutes, Councillor. Thank you, Chair. Good evening, Councillors. I'm Jeff Villas from Southwater Parish Council and I'm sitting here before you today on behalf of Southwater Parish Council to address proposed development outlined in application, D.C., stroke 23, stroke 1178 concerning the establishment of sports and leisure hub, a local centre and housing units within our community. As representatives of our constituents, we wish to express our strong objection to this development proposal for several compelling reasons. First and foremost, the proposed development starkly contradicts the policies outlined in the Southwater neighbourhood plan, which serves as a vital framework for sustainable development within our parish. The proposed site lies beyond the established built up area boundaries as defined by the Southwater neighbourhood plan and has not been included in the emerging local plan. Furthermore, the excessive scale of the proposed development far exceeds the parameters set forth in the SMP, therefore undermining the carefully considered development strategy for our community. Moreover, the proposed development poses significant threats to a rural character and landscape of our parish. To hide density housing units, mixed use facilities would introduce an urbanising influence detrimental to countryside. Contrary to principles outlined in the Horsham District planning framework, the HDFPF, additionally the proposed traffic influx and inadequate transportation infrastructure would not only exacerbate existing congestion, but also compromise pedestrian cyclists safely violating sustainable transport policies. Furthermore, concerns regarding provision of affordable housing, agriculture, ecology and water mitigation strategies remain undressed in the proposal. The failure to make prescribed criteria for affordable housing mix, the disregard for policies concerning tree planting, reference, SMP policy, SMP 18 and ecological preservation are particularly troubling to us. Unlike these substantial concerns, it is evident that proposed development fails to align with the principles of sustainable development and community preservation outlined in both local and district planning frameworks. Crying permission for this development would not only undermine the integrity of our established planning guidelines, but also have far-reaching adverse effects on our community's well-being and environment. Therefore, on behalf of South Hall to parish council, my respects fully urge the Horsham District Council to carefully consider our objections and reject proposed development outlined in application DC, stroke 23, stroke 1178. We implore you to prioritise the long term sustainability and the well-being of our community over some short-sighted development interests. Thank you very much. Thank you, Councillor Villers. That completes from the floor. Come back to the officers for clarification of any points raised. Just for the affordable housing, just if this was recommended for approval, we'd need to seek the clarification on the housing mix and the affordable housing mix. We could outline that in a legal agreement or agree as part of reserve matters. So it's not something we need to agree at this stage. It would be agreed in the event of the application being permitted through legal agreements or through reserve matter stage. Also, with the tree policy that has been taken into consideration, and again, if this application were to go forward, it would be something that we'd look at at reserve matter stage to make sure it complies with the tree policy in the Southwater neighbourhood plan. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. As a ward member and Chair, what I'm going to do is I'm going to listen to what others have to say and then probably have a wrap at the end. Councillor Vickers, as the ward member with alongside me on Southwater North, would you like to start? Yes, thank you, Chairman. Can I start by thanking the officers for the very good presentation and this extremely fair, comprehensive and balanced report, which covers all the relevant planning policies. I've listened very carefully to all the speakers this evening, and I note that the positive benefits of this application have been clearly covered. I commend both Dawn Osborne and Chris Polland on their very passionate speaking in favour of their requests. There is also also affordable housing element, which is a huge benefit. However, I have significant concerns relating to the 800 homes, which is a very significant part of this application. As clearly stated in the report, as I see it, there are nine valid reasons to refuse this application. Firstly, the development is located outside the defined built up area of both Southwater and the Horsham, and is not allocated for development in the Horsham district planning framework work, the Southwater neighbourhood plan or the emerging local plan. It is not considered essential to a countryside location, and is contrary to the overarching spatial strategy of the development plan outlined in policies 2, 3 and 4 of the HDPF and countryside policy 26 of the HDPF. It is also, most importantly, contrary to the core principles of the Southwater neighbourhood plan, policy SNP1, and detracts from the southwater village as a single centre settlement and would result in coalescence between the settlements of Southwater, Tower Hill and Horsham, which is contrary to policy 27 of the HDPF and also policy SNP1 of the Southwater neighbourhood plan. I do acknowledge the lack of a five-year housing land supply and the provisions of the MPPF 2023 at paragraph 11D. However, I agree there are deemed to be no material considerations which would outweigh conflict with the development power policies in these regards. Horsham district is situated in an area of serious water stress, and as such, water neutrality must be proven. Natural England is clear in its position statement about water neutrality. It is not proven that there is sufficient information to show yield in perpetuity. There has been no field data support of visibility of this proposal and water quality issues have not been considered to demonstrate no contamination. There is no clear information to show landscape impact can be suitably mitigated. The proposed scale of development would have an urbanising effect harming the character and visual amenity of the area. The application fails to demonstrate that a safe and suitable access can be achieved for all users of the site. There will be a high reliance on the use of motor vehicles for all journeys. The necessary active travel infrastructure to facilitate safe routes with pedestrians and cyclists is not deliverable, which is contrary to policies' modes, sustainable transport, as set out in the MPPF Paragraphs 108, 109, 115, 115 and 119, and also policy 40 of the HDPF. The proposed development site is subject to medium and high-risk surface water flooding as shown on environment agency maps. The flood risk assessment and drainage strategy conflicts with Policy 30H of the HDPF and Paragraphs 165168 and 173 of the MPPF. There is a real danger that amenity of future occupants of the site will be detrimentally impacted by noise disturbance from Worthing Road and the A24. Also, there has been no provision of secondary education on site, and a financial contribution does not suffice. As the Planning Officer said, the site is unsustainably located in relation to primary schools in the area. The site is within an area identified for mineral safeguarding for Horsham Stone and insufficient information has been presented to prove that safeguarding. As also, Planning Officer said, there is no completed legal agreement to safeguard delivery of the Affordable Housing requirement or how the other infrastructure requirements development will be met. I look forward to hearing other members' views on this proposed development. However, at present, I'm minded to agree with the officer's recommendation to refuse on the basis of the concerns I just outlined. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor Vickers. Right. Anybody else want to say something? Councillor KITCHEN. Thank you, Chairman. I'm surprised you didn't get a whole body of hands up. I have to say, when I first heard about this plan, which was quite a few years ago now, we first got the glossy brochure. I was thinking what an absolutely brilliant idea it was to have all these things, and I know about the work that they do with some of the people who go there. I was, and to an extent, still am, very much in favour of it. But there are a few areas here that worry me slightly, and it's for that reason that this evening I'll be abstaining on the vote, which I hate doing, because I think abstaining is a cop-out, which it is, in my view, and that's what I'm doing this evening. But the one that does worry me is the mineral safeguarding, which I hadn't heard about until the briefing the other night, and that is a concern to me. Of course, to be fairness to everywhere that I, that we make planning applications, I'm forced to think about water neutrality, and quite clearly that hasn't been proved, as I was led to believe that it had been. And of course, the legal agreement, but that could probably, if it was granted, this evening could have been sorted. But it's for those main reasons, but I would like to say, I do support, in principle, the idea of what they're trying to do here, and the sports track and the golf and the hockey, I think, would be a great benefit to abortion. But, as I said, I don't think there's still a bit to go, as far as the plan is concerned. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Councillor KITCHIN. Anybody else? Councillor FRANK. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, officers, for the extensive report and the visit that we made to look at the site, so that I find that really helpful. I just want to get on record, really, where I'm on this. I am a huge supporter of participatory sport. I've been employed at a national level in sport. I have been on the committees, I'm still on committees in Horsham running and cycling clubs. And the benefit of these clubs to our town and the district is a mess. I've seen it. It is—you can't measure it. It is enormous. I think, though, that this is not an application for a sports facility. It is an application for 800 houses to be built outside the built-up area with the assets of sports facilities on the side. And I think, for me, I have to look at it in that way. I listened very closely to the speakers this evening. I didn't hear anyone from the speakers supporting the specifics of this housing development. I heard support of the sports facilities, but I didn't hear the support of the housing development specifically. That, I think, will go to inform how I may vote on this this evening. Thank you, Councillor Frankly. Who was first? It looked like a dead heat to me. Councillor GRUNT. Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank everyone who's turned up today and especially the speakers who've been very informative for us. But I find ourselves in a real pickle when I echo what my fellow Councillors have said. On the face of it, this is an enticing application, definitely. We're in desperate need of housing. We're in desperate need of improved sports facilities and all the rest of it that's been spoken of tonight. But unfortunately, for myself and echoing thoughts of fellow Councillors, this plan, this application, has come crashing on the rocks of reality of lack of infrastructure. It's a, you know, who wouldn't want to have improved sports facilities in the neighbourhood. We definitely need more houses, especially for the younger generations to move into one day. But hearing what I've heard and from the inputs, valuable inputs from fellow Councillors, I'm probably minded to vote against this application tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much, Councillor JAN, please. Thank you very much. Well, this is obviously a hugely significant application. It's a very, very large application of 800 houses. It has significant benefits in terms of the facilities that it provides. And in terms of a local business and local employment as well, not just for the voluntary organisations and residents. So it does offer some really positive things. However, it is clearly against the existing portion district planning framework local plan and the Southwater neighbourhood plan and the emerging local plan. And in terms of what the problems are with this, we all know about the water neutrality issue and that may or may not be solvable, although at the time we stopped taking further representations. That was still up in the air. So putting that aside, I'd like to consider the issues that I think are particularly important in the officer's suggested reasons for refusal. Firstly, the location and the way this sits in the landscape and the way it leads towards coalescence with the settlement of Southwater. Now, we do need housing and it would be perfectly possible to have a local plan, that planned for greater coalescence between this area and Southwater. However, we have had years of work looking at the relative benefits and harms of alternative sites for the large future development that we need. And there's been a lot of work gone into looking at this because none of them are perfect. They all have disadvantages. And this site was not included in the Regulation 19 consultation, very largely because of the problems it's causing with the coalescence. The second thing I'd like to say is about the education, just very briefly, that this is a large site. We are short of educational facilities and this site does not offer the prospect of helping towards that. On the contrary, it will exacerbate the situation. Thirdly, I'd like to talk about the active travel. Active travel England came down very strongly against this site because of the really appalling lack of safe and effective options for people to walk and cycle between the site and horsemen and also to a lesser extent, but still there with Southwater. Now, my view is that it would be wonderful if we had those active travel links, particularly to a sporting venue where you would really hope that people would be travelling more actively and not exacerbating the already very crowded conditions on a road that is, frankly, a death trap, particularly for pedestrians and cyclists. I think it would be possible to do something about that. But over the years, and I know because I've tried really hard to do this, there has been pressure put on West Sussex to improve the conditions linking this site to both horsemen and Southwater and those improvements are at the moment, frankly, simply not coming. It's even worse than they're not coming. I've read the transport notes that have been put forward here and West Sussex has been pushing on the developer to pull back on the things that they are offering. The West Sussex is not even calling for things to be made to the current standards and guidance. And I think whilst the transport note tries to put active travel England's recommendation for rejection in context, I think the big context here is that West Sussex County Council is the only council in the country that was given a zero rating for its active travel policy. So, West Sussex have said that there are improvements. They've said that you can have bus travel instead of walking in cycling. Well, that's not what NPPF says. That's not what gear change says. That's not what our policy says we should be doing. West Sussex have said that they'd like the developer, if permission is granted, to widen the pavement to one and a half metres. But only for, I think, about 80% of the distance because there's a width constraint along the whirthing road. Well, inclusive mobility, the standard they're meant to be working for there for pedestrians says the pavement should be two metres wide. Even where the space for it to be two metres wide, West Sussex have said doesn't matter, go for one and a half. So, the provision that is in the current application as it stands is woefully short of what's needed for active travel. And there is a suggestion that because it's so hard to go via the whirthing road that the route should go via peddlers way. And people do cycle and walk from peddlers way to horse them. It's a lot further, which is a significant barrier to active travel where you're using your own steam. But if you read the detail of this, there is no guarantee that those improvements will actually happen. It's being pushed off as a public rights of way issue and the standards that you need for that are far lower than you need for a utility route for people, kids, women, people at night, people with some levels of disability. It's far short of the standards you'd need for that during wet weather, during the winter and in the dark. And we know that putting lighting and surfacing on peddlers way is a contentious issue. So, there's nothing in there that would guarantee that would happen. Likewise, the improvements to the road between horsemen and Southwater were a suggested proposal. But they, again, fall well short of L-T-N-1-20, the current standard that we need to apply for. So, although this is just one aspect of this whole application, I really want to highlight how woefully short the whole thing falls on active travel. And this is no criticism whatsoever of the developer, because I know that the owners of the golf club have been very active in looking to improve access for people coming, walking and cycling. It's a criticism that over the years, there's been nothing put in place within the council structure. So, at the moment, there is nothing there. And so, we're now in a position where we will be due to put in our local plans mission in June. And if we grant this planning permission for this, the whole issue of the spatial strategy will be blown out of the water. All the years of work that have been put into doing the assessments and looking at how we can improve things for the new developments that are proposed in the current local plan proposal will be messed up, because this is a very, very significant large development that would change the whole thing. So, what I'd like to say is that it's in my view that quite apart from the lack of specific detail about satisfactory in terms of things like active travel, that if we were to grant permission now in advance of the planning examination that for the local plan, this would have potential to be far more prejudicial to the plan making process than the mere scale of the development would suggest. And as a result of that, my current view is that we should be following the officer recommendation. Yeah, the officer wanted to make a comment. Yes, thank you, Councillors. Just a point at the end around being this application being potentially prejudicial to the plan making process. I can just refer you to page 37 of the agenda pack and paragraphs 6.7, 6.8, 6.9, which refers to national planning policy framework on when arguments around prematurity against a new local plan can carry weight in decisions. Now, paragraph 49, so that such prematurity arguments are unlikely to justify refusal permission other than where, for instance, the emergency plan is at an advanced stage. Now, our plan at the moment is ahead of submission in the coming weeks and months and therefore is not considered to be at an advanced stage. So, based on what's in front of us today, the advice of officers is that an argument around prematurity against a new local plan is not reason to refuse permission. Thank you. Thank you for that correction, Councillor Milne. Thank you, Chairman. As Councillor Fletcher said, this is a very large site and it does have an impact on the local plan, although I entirely take what the officer has just said about we can't consider an argument of prematurity yet. As cabinet member for planning, obviously, I was heavily involved with the local plan and a lot of issues have been raised tonight to have an impact on it. So, with another development of this size, there's an impact on the traffic study, there's an impact on infrastructure in general burden, but the particular factor that I work that that concerns me is secondary school provision and that is a problem in itself as well as as as well as for the future. As many residents will know, we have had a we have a chronic shortage of secondary school places in the area of South Water and Horsham and the numbers are very much on the age such that pupils have been potentially had to relocate to other or go to school outside even the district or to get out to find places. So, the numbers are on the age. The problem with this development is that it's 800 new homes, all of which would queue jump all of the homes in South Water because they're in the Tambridge catchment zone. So, that is that is a clearly tip tipped it over the age. So, a school has to be found somewhere. This development does not provide it. Every large development has an ineffective public subsidy and can be devoted to different things and in this case, which is not directed towards the school, but towards the very impressive sports facilities which are of course attractive in themselves. But there is a cost to that and that is on other areas that are somehow going to have to take up the slack on the school provision. There are secondary school is normally expensive. It's one of the big budget hill being built. It's going to be over 70 million. It is incredible. I don't know why they cost so much. So, it takes a large development to be able to afford it. And that is why we put that we're only a couple available. So, West of South Water is one of the sites we chose for that reason. But that is a very, that's a large number of houses very close to this site. It makes no sense to allocate those. So, if you look at it from the point of view, there is no plan yet, so it doesn't count. Then you say, well, you've got 800 homes without a school. If you say, oh, but there is a school coming via West of South Water, then you've got both sites. You can see them both sites. So, by the way, it doesn't make sense. So, for me, the school alone, if there were no other factors and there are many other factors, which would very strongly suggest refusal because these are extremely hard things to fix. They have a very long time scale and this just exacerbates a problem that is already right on the edge. Thank you. Thanks, Councillor Milne. Councillor Skitt. Thank you very much, Chair. I've listened very carefully to what's being said. I've been very impressed with all the speakers who presented their arguments. And it's a difficult argument, isn't it, because on the one hand, there's a very emotional pull to the hockey, because actually it's sport. It's what we need to keep it. It's for the future generations. There are a lot of positives. And yet, we're actually faced with approving 800 houses, 1,600 people, perhaps if two and a half, 2,400 of you got three in a house and more. And that's a lot of people to accommodate for our infrastructure, which is probably most of you know, is at a stretching point, particularly medically. And I think that we have to take into account the coalescence and that joining of South Water and Ocean. And it's not in our plan. It never was. And I think we have to protect that. What I'm sad about is, and I speak to myself, is that I hadn't kicked up what was happening to the hockey club. I'm involved in the rugby club. I go watch football. I play golf. For me, I'm an old man. I need something that I can play when I'm older. And I was very intrigued in the paper the other day, that England over 80 hockey are playing the Dutch over 80. And in fact, one of the guys from the Dutch side was 90. Now, that speaks a lot for hockey and the sport. So, while I feel that it's quite important that we have to look at the houses, when we have to look at the facilities and the infrastructure. And that's what we're here for. I've listened to what was said about the hockey end. And I think that's something that we need to take forward in our leisure activities in Ocean and see what can be done and achieved. Because you're a remarkable club, you've got a lot of people who are playing at high level, you've got a lot of youngsters. And I think that's important. But the issue here, as has been rightly said, is an issue of houses of development and whether Worsham is going to find itself stretched anywhere. And 800 houses and a lot of houses. So, I have to support the officer's assessment. And I have to say, the officer's assessment has been very thorough. I'm very sort of neutral in terms of giving us the information. But I think that's where I'm coming from. So, thank you for speaking and thank you for coming. I appreciate that. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Skip. Can you just knock your mic off, please? Councillor Minto. Thank you, Chair. I didn't want to leave the room without saying how important it was to support local activities and certainly the Warren Clark golfing dreams opportunity. But Councillor Skip has got there before me. So, thank you for that. When this first came up as an opportunity like Councillor Kitchy, I thought theoretically fantastic, absolutely. But I don't think in the five years I've been on this committee, I've seen an application that has nine very, very clear reasons for refusal. I just wanted to say, obviously, the centre in the room, the conversation we're having, certainly want to thank the officers and thank the passion of everybody that has put forward their cases for foreign against. But I think I can sense where this conversation is going. So, I just want to make sure and support what Councillor Skip has said that I urge everyone in this room and the Council to consider what we can do for the hockey club, what we can do for the Warren Clark golfing dreams opportunity, consider that in what we do and other opportunities that are presented to us because it's so vitally important. Thank you. Thank you, Councillor Minto. Time for a wrap. Okay, thank you very much. I mean, we've heard some very passionate conversation as a ward member for Southwater North. A lot of it comes home to me and fellow Councillors in that area. The number one thing which Councillor Mill alluded to is the school. We have some very unhappy parents and children in Southwater for the second year in a row because their kids can't get into the schools, that they're three choices. And to think that they're just going to be further disadvantaged by something like this, I think it's not the timing is wrong. There's another thousand homes in the local plan for Southwater. There's the provision for a school. But when we were at the Southwater site, I was standing next to a guy who said he moved here in 1972 and they were talking about a secondary school in Southwater. So until we see spade in the ground on that, I think we have to recognize that a thousand more homes in Southwater in accordance with our local plan is sufficient for the time being. And let's see the school get built. Let's work with you on provision for sports facilities. But I'm afraid I, too, support the refusal here. It's not the right place at the right time right now. So I suggest we move a motion. Sorry, Cleo, if you'd like to wrap my wrap. Thank you, thank you, Chair. It's very, very briefly. I think we've heard a lot of very valid and very good points made by members. Through you, can I ask that, please, how we can help Orchum hockey club through the local plan process. I hear what Councillors get and Councillor Mendo have said. And also, I would implore the Golf Club to look at how they might be able to help Warren Clark golfing dreams with their aspirations. But having said all that, Chairman, I think we should move the motion to refuse the officer's recommendation. Thank you. No, we're going to move the motion to refuse the application in accordance with the officer's recommendation. A seconder for that. Councillor Vickers, I will move it. Councillor Vickers can say a second. And so all of those in favour? Those against and abstentions. So we have 14 vote for non-against and one abstention. Thank you. Thank you very much. Well, that's our single item of business this evening. Thank you to the public for your recognition of this evening and the way we operate here. It's much appreciated. I'm sure there must have been moments when you would like to jump up and down. I appreciate it very much that you didn't. And good luck. We'll see you again sometime. [ Silence ]