As was reported in the local press this week, the committee voted to grant outline planning permission, subject to a Section 106 agreement. Our opposition to this decision is already well-documented here and some of our comments were reported in the County Times' reports.
Below are the full texts of the speeches made at the meeting by our members.
This speech was made by David Hide, Chair of Horsham Labour party:
This is no ordinary planning application, this is an application for a strategic site. A site identified by the council in its own core strategy. As no doubt a good deal of time and council tax payers money has been spent on developing the strategy and submitting it to the appropriate authorities, it would not be unreasonable for residents of Horsham to expect the council to comply with it, particularly some of its key points contained in the Master Planning document.
I quote
The strategic development will be expected to include 40 percent affordable. This will be provided on site. This is a key opportunity to secure provision rather than accept monies to be spent elsewhere.
Low-cost housing may not be considered for planning purposes as affordable housing. Such housing is highly unlikely to be affordable in the Horsham Context.
The previous application failed to deliver the required level of affordable housing on this site, and this new proposal makes no guaranteed improvement on the original offer, offering instead the prospect of 'virtual affordable housing' delivered some time hence on as yet unidentified and possibly non-existent sites.
The terms of this proposal remain in stark contrast to the master plan.
The developers knew that this was a strategic site and therefore would have been aware of the specific requirements. As hard-nosed business people on the scent of maximum profits they chance their arm. This is the situation right across the country, but councils like Cambridge and Wakefield are standing up to the developers, insisting on the supply of the affordable homes.
If the chief executive and leader of the Council, whose recommendation seems to be to accept this offer, are not prepared to follow the example of these councils, and stand up for the people of Horsham, stand up to the developers, perhaps then now is the time for them both to stand down.
Please vote against this proposal
Margaret Cornwell, Treasurer of Horsham Labour party said:
At the meeting on the 16th March I spoke against this application due to the developer’s failure to commit to delivery of affordable housing at the rate proposed in Horsham’s core strategy, and published in the housing strategy document.
The affordable element offered was not only well below the 40 percent target set by the council, but well below the amount required to meet the urgent need for affordable homes in our district; a need highlighted not only by the council itself, but by Shelter in a recent survey, by the Chief executive of Saxon Weald Homes and by the hundreds of signatories of the Labour party petition.
When they agreed at that meeting to defer the decision on the planning application the councillors said that they welcomed the delay as an opportunity to ensure that there would be an increase in the level of affordable housing. It is therefore disappointing to see that the new proposals under this application fail to achieve that objective.
This proposal gives no firm guarantee of an improvement on the original offer. Any possibility of an increase is dependent on a number of conditions. There is no certainty that all these conditions will be fulfilled, therefore no certainty that the new homes will ever be delivered.
A thirteen year review period should also be of concern to the Council. This is hardly likely to deliver the urgent response needed to the housing crisis.
The proposal that an increase on the 20 percent offered will only be offered in a climate of further house price rises is alarming. If prices spiral higher, more and more people will find the price of a home well beyond their reach, leading to a need for even more affordable homes than currently estimated. Developments should surely in those circumstances be required to deliver above the 40 percent target not significantly below if this increased need is to be addressed.
This proposal does nothing to address the present pressing levels of demand, I therefore urge the council to turn down this application.