Q&A

Why are so many new houses needed in this country?

Due to natural population growth and inward migration, the Government estimates that about 300,000 new homes must be built each year to accommodate them.

Although the population of England is undoubtably growing (from 47 million in 1991 to about 59 million today) this growth rate is falling due to a declining birth rate and an over-estimate of migrant numbers. As a result, the 300,000 annual requirement is a considerable overstatement of the actual need.  

Why are Mid Sussex being asked to provide 8,000 more homes in addition to the previous housing target and how was this figure arrived at?

The National figure of 300,000 new houses per year is divided up across each of the 300+ planning authorities in the country according to a formula or “algorithm” known as the “Standard Model”.

This formula consists of two parts. Firstly, the figure of 300,000 per year is divided up between the 300+ English planning authorities over a rolling 15-year period. Then in addition an “affordability” ratio is factored in. The purpose of this affordability ratio is to overprovide housing by a rate that supposedly reduces house prices to the national average. In the case of Mid-Sussex this is about 40% on top of the 300,000. Then finally Mid Sussex is obliged to take up the “unmet housing need” of Horsham, Brighton and Hove, and Crawley. This is known as the duty to co-operate.

In the real world, developers do not reduce the price of houses in return for being allowed to build more of them and there is no mechanism to ensure that they do. There is no evidence to suggest that this approach has ever resulted in a reduction in house prices anywhere.

The Campaign for the Protection of Rural England has estimated that if the 2018 population figures were used instead of the government’s preferred 2014 numbers AND the unworkable affordability factor was removed then the housing numbers required would reduce by 53%. 

Why was the Ansty Farms site been chosen? 

This site to which we are objecting was chosen by the Council themselves from a list of potential sites known as the SHELAA (Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment).  This list of potential building sites is another requirement demanded by central government (National Planning Policy Framework).

Mid Sussex as a matter of policy and out of fear of being stripped of its role as a planning authority have chosen to accept the housing numbers they have been given by central Government and working down the list of sites on the SHELAA they approached the owners of the Ansty Farms site with a view to proposing the site for housing in the new District Plan.

The fact that the site had been previously rejected as inappropriate seems not to have been a factor in its subsequent inclusion in the plan. The exercise has been simply one of compliance with central government dictat and has been determined solely by a desire to provide the numbers being demanded.

But New Housing is required and if this site is rejected then the village will just wither and die.

We are not opposed to all development, In the last 10 years Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council has fully co-operated with Homes England’s plan to build 3,500 houses in the Northern Arc whilst the village itself has seen a 60% growth in population in the last 10 years. Cuckfield PC has adopted a similar approach. 

Both Parishes have democratically endorsed Neighbourhood Plans that allows for sustainable growth in accordance with the wishes of residents.  The Ansty Farms development on the other hand is the wrong development, in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Can we influence what is being demanded by Central Government?

We are lobbying hard via our MP and with strategic partners such as the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England to persuade government to use the most up to date population estimates and to remove the affordability factor that will dramatically reduce the estimate of the housing numbers required. 

Regardless of these housing targets however, the fact is that this site was chosen not because of its suitability but because it provided a substantial proportion of the 8000+ additional homes being demanded by the government.

The inclusion of this site can be stopped by demonstrating: 

• that it is unsustainable in terms of transport, water provision and existing planning policy

• that the environmental impacts are unacceptable

• that it is damaging to the near and wider landscapes.

We have already secured via our campaign to date (June 2022) a promise from the leadership of Mid-Sussex District Council that this site will be removed from the draft District Plan. This promise has been made good as of Monday 10^th October.

Now that the Ansty Farms site has been removed from the draft District Plan does that mean the end of the campaign?

Unfortunately No. There is still an 18 month to 2 year period before this decision can be made final.

The developer Fairfax will undoubtably challenge this decision and appeal over the heads of the District Council to the planning inspectorate.  Any subsequent enquiry the evidence produced by each side will be evaluated and a final judgement made on the merits of the arguments put forward. 

What can we do?

SCAG are in this fight for the long term. Fundamentally what will matter is providing the evidence to support what we already know. That the Ansty Farms site is the wrong place for housing development to be taking place.

We are seeking to convincingly prove this by commissioning expert reports from leading professionals in the realms of Landscape, Planning, Transport and Water Provision. 

With the weight of this evidence behind us we believe that we, like the LAMBS campaign in Horsham District before us, can defeat this absurd proposal.

IT WILL TAKE TIME, MONEY AND DETERMINED EFFORT TO SUCCEED.

How can I help?

There is a long campaign ahead but in the first instance there is a 6 week consultation period where members of the public will be able to express a view and to submit letters or emails detailing their objections. 

It would be enormously helpful to the campaign if letters or emails supporting the new draft district plan could be written and objections to the Fairfax development expressed in terms of its unsustainability with regard to transport, water, planning and its detrimental environmental impact.

You can also help by volunteering your time and expertise to the campaign and donating money towards our ongoing costs. Please follow the links below.