East Surrey MP, Peter Ainsworth, has today submitted his formal response to the South East Plan as part of the consultation process on the Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the draft Plan, which was originally drawn up in 2006. The Government is looking for a major increase in housebuilding trgets across Surrey.

The South East Plan sets out a future vision for the south east of England until 2026, and covers housing, transport, employment and the environment. 

Speaking about the Secretary of State’s proposed changes to the Plan, Mr Ainsworth said:

“Local people feel disconnected from the decision making process and aggrieved that they are having these proposals thrust upon them, which will do little to assist the smooth running of the Plan’s implementation. It is telling that the Secretary of State has struck out all references to “local” in her amendments to the Plan.

“Local Councils, in my view, have always been and will continue to be best placed to decide what is best for the people they serve and, more importantly, are directly accountable at the ballot box.”

The full text of Mr Ainsworth’s submission:

I am writing to you as Member of Parliament for East Surrey. My constituency is coterminous with Tandridge District Council and extends to cover the town of Horley where, as you will be aware, substantial development on green field sites is already under construction. Horley is within the Borough of Reigate and Banstead.

The Secretary of State’s intervention in the Plan originally proposed by the South East England Regional Assembly and subsequently by the Panel has caused concern across the South East, including Surrey. Whilst the need to meet genuine housing need is accepted by all responsible people, the increase in allocations across the area proposed by the Government appears to be arbitrary and is not supported by evidence of need. In fact, it is not supported by any substantive evidence at all, which is neither a satisfactory nor an acceptable approach to a process with such profound long-term implications for communities, infrastructure, landscapes, land use, and natural resources.

I set out below a number of specific concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on my constituents.

1) Treating housing provision figures as minima.

This approach threatens to undermine confidence in the whole process. Housing targets have never been regarded as ceilings, but have provided a degree of certainty for local authorities when making long term decisions about land use.

Questions have been raised about the effectiveness and desirability of centrally imposed targets; that is a discussion for a different occasion. But a minimum target approach has, in any case, serious disadvantages. It means that the findings of the Sustainability Appraisal, for example, could be rendered irrelevant. This would contradict stated Government policy as well as constitute a waste of time, knowledge and public money. It would also undermine the entire basis of applying the principles of sustainable development to the planning process – something which would have far reaching, wide, and damaging implications.

In short, it would lead to uncertainty, make infrastructure provision more difficult to predict, and exacerbate public scepticism.

2) Green Belt Boundary Reviews

The Green Belt in East Surrey is narrow and has been under pressure for many years. The proposal specifically to include Reigate and Banstead as an area where a review of Green Belt boundaries should take place is not supported by any evidence; nor supported by the local Council or local opinion. This needs to be reconsidered.

3) Gatwick

This is not the place to discuss the wider issue of the Government’s policy on aviation capacity. However, the re-wording of Policy T9 from “support the development of Gatwick and Heathrow Airports within currently agreed levels of growth” to “support the development of Gatwick and Heathrow airports and safeguard land at Gatwick for a possible new runway after 2019” represents a deviation from stated Government Transport policy. Again, this creates confusion and uncertainty, and the original wording should be retained, or a change in Government policy toward Gatwick expansion made explicit.

4) Reigate and Banstead

A large percentage, though not all, of the Borough of Reigate and Banstead is in the constituency of my colleague Cripsin Blunt MP (whom I know will be submitting his own views separately) but I share his concerns, and those of the Borough Council, about proposals for that area.

Under the Secretary of State’s proposed changes, the Borough will have to find space for a total of 11,240 new homes, an increase of 31.7%, or 3,500 homes, over the draft Plan. 

The town of Horley, which is in my constituency, is, as I am sure you will be aware, already obliged to build 2,600 new homes over the next 7-10 years as part of the ‘Horley Masterplan’. The 11,240 put forward by the Secretary of State is in addition to existing building programmes, and these new figures will lead to great local concern about the ability of this area to sustain such dramatic growth.

5) Impacts on wider constituency

I am also concerned about the negative knock-on effect this large scale development in Reigate and Banstead would have right across my constituency.

As the Sustainability Appraisal shows, the north of Tandridge and certain parts of Reigate and Banstead have ‘no water available’. Given the greater demand for water that will be required under the Secretary of State’s housing proposals, it is highly likely that this will have a negative effect in Tandridge, manifesting itself in water deficit. There is little evidence to suggest that the linked issues of extra housing and water need have been given sufficient thought.

Furthermore, I have concerns that the road network in the Tandridge area will be insufficient to deal with large scale expansion. Traffic travelling east to west on the A25 that does not using the M25, for example, will go through the villages of Godstone, Beltchingley and Nutfield, all of which already suffer from high levels of through traffic. Given the narrowness of the roads, the provision of extra capacity on this road network is neither possible, nor, desirable. Any extra strain will lead to unsolvable problems in the future.

Surrey as a county has also had long-standing problems with regard to police funding shortfalls; and there is certainly no indication that extra monies will be received should the local population expand.

In short, the South East Plan as it stands under the Secretary of State’s proposed changes will, in my view, lead to an erosion of the vital marriage between development and infrastructure.

6) Conclusions

In conclusion, I believe the South East Plan to be overzealous in its objectives and undemocratic in its processes.

The forecasting of future housing need is, I appreciate, not an exact science; but it is clear that expansion before infrastructure will lead to problems in both the medium and long terms.

Furthermore, I feel that decisions on future need in the south east have been achieved through unaccountable processes. As a result, local people feel disconnected from the decision making process and aggrieved that they are having these proposals thrust upon them, which will do little to assist the smooth running of the Plan’s implementation. It is telling that the Secretary of State has struck out all references to “local” in her amendments to the Plan.

Local Councils, in my view, have always been and will continue to be best placed to decide what is best for the people they serve and, more importantly, are directly accountable at the ballot box.

I am grateful for the opportunity to comment.