Entitled to an explanation

In his carefully crafted letter for last week’s County Times, Glen Chipp (chief executive of HDC) deftly avoided two key points.

Where’s the success in having a local plan passed by government inspectors if you have had to concede the concreting over of any/all of Rookwood, Adversane or Buck Barn to achieve it?

Wouldn’t your residents consider that as failure?

Also, if you have a local plan with an unachievably high housing target, then the subsequent supply/delivery tests won’t be met anyway and so developers would still gain the upper hand in securing planning permissions on unallocated and unacceptable sites.

Yes, good practice says we need to complete the local plan review soonest, but not at the expense of too high a number and/or allocation of unwanted and highly damaging strategic sites.

I think I can now assume that Mr Chipp’s omission to continue berating me on the ‘five per cent contingency buffer’ means that it’s now accepted that adding this to the underlying housing requirement is totally irrational, and that my logic was correct all along.

However there’s now an allegation that my workings don’t properly encompass the duty to co-operate with neighbouring authorities.

That isn’t true. I have meticulously allowed for the full housing needs (and more) of the North West Sussex Housing Market Area, with HDC continuing to supply significantly in excess of the current arrangement to evenly share Crawley’s shortfall with Mid Sussex.

HDC is promoting 1,200 homes per year as ‘the best deal we can get’. Oh really? If you deduct 900 for Horsham, and a further (average) 170 to satisfy Crawley, it must be that the final 130 has been earmarked to assist South Coast Market Areas with their housing shortfalls.

Over the 17 year plan duration, that’s a massive 2,210 extra homes dumped in Horsham’s countryside. With HDC’s cabinet unwilling to sanction any strategic sites in the south of Horsham District, is that equitable?

If HDC continues to advocate the 1,200 homes per year option, surely it must disclose its calculations? Just saying that we should be grateful it’s not more, simply won’t wash.

Residents are entitled to a comprehensive and evidenced explanation.

PAUL KORNYCKY

Cox Green, Rudgwick