'Urgent' government action needed on West Sussex's water supply
and on Freeview 262 or Freely 565
In September 2021 a position statement from Natural England was issued for all of the Horsham district plus parts of Crawley, Chichester, Arun and Mid Sussex due to concerns about the rate of water abstraction’s impact on protected sites in the Arun Valley.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdThis has effectively put a brake on any new development if there is the likelihood water consumption will increase and applications should not be permitted until it has demonstrated they can be ‘water neutral’.
While some may view this as a blessing given West Sussex is faced with massive housing targets imposed by central government, there are concerns the present situation is also holding up new business floorspace and much-needed infrastructure such as school extensions.
West Sussex County Council passed a motion on Friday (May 27) noting the significant efforts by all parties, but ‘expresses serious concern about the length of time that this is taking and the lack of any definitive timescale within which the matter is likely to be resolved’.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdIt called on the leader to make further representations to government departments and stakeholders to seek a sustainable resolution ‘as a matter of extreme urgency’.
But it also noted that concerns about water stress will remain in the long-term and asked the leader to write to DEFRA and urge the government to introduce legislation to require all new developments to conform to a minimum level of water efficiency in the future.
Richard Burrett (Con, Pound Hill), who proposed the motion, felt the current water efficiency measures being suggested ‘only scratch the surface of the problem’ and without national guidelines on minimum standards the position ‘will only improve at a snail’s pace’.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdAndrew Baldwin (Con, Holbrook) raised fears the hold-ups would deter businesses coming to the area and even existing firms relocating elsewhere.
While some would welcome greenfield housing developments being ‘on hold’, Mr Baldwin said the ‘stay of execution’ would be disappointing for people who are homeless or wanting to get on the property ladder. However he did argue the number of new houses being built in West Sussex was ‘unsustainable’.
John Milne (LDem, Horsham Riverside) suggested the embargo on new development was a ‘double edged sword’ affecting many local firms and causing delays for many neighbourhood plans being prepared by parishes.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdAnd although the situation might present a ‘golden opportunity’ for councils to rethink their ‘hugely unpopular’ local plans, once the embargo is eventually lifted it would be ‘open season for speculative development’ as many areas would not be able to demonstrate a five-year housing land supply.
James Walsh (LDem, Littlehampton East) feared that if one part of West Sussex is unable to deliver on its housing targets due to water neutrality restrictions, development could simply be foisted on to other areas under the duty to cooperate.
Andrew Kerry-Bedell (LDem, Bourne) suggested water saving measures installed in new developments such as shower heads or hippos in toilet cisterns would just be taken out when residents move in.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe also thought the issue of water neutrality might soon affect a greater area than the Sussex North Water Supply Zone.
Donna Johnson (Local Alliance, Selsey) called for immediate action to ensure a sufficient water supply for future generations, noting that UK-wide water demand could outstrip supply as early as 2050.
Although there was near unanimous support for the sentiment of the motion, several speakers had issues with its wording.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdSarah Sharp (Green, Chichester South) thought it ‘failed to grasp the seriousness of the situation we are facing’.
She found it difficult to reconcile the competing demands of new housing and economic growth dictated by central government and water supply.
She asked whether housing targets should be reviewed due to the water shortages and thought the problem would only get worse due to hotter, drier summers and less predictable rainfall.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdMs Sharp felt a thorough investigation of all the issues would be better than ‘rushing out a mitigation package’ and asked for them to look at how they use land in West Sussex.
Meanwhile Simon Oakley (Con, Chichester East) wondered if they were treating the symptoms and not the underlying problems.
He believed that water efficiency plans rely too heavily on population behaviour, while other potential measures such as desalination plants or new reservoirs were costly and took a long time to bring to fruition.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe also wondered if there should be a ‘fundamental reappraisal’ of housing targets and population growth which central government is currently imposing on West Sussex and the South East.
Alison Cornell (Lab, Langley Green & Ifield East) asked if they should be pushing for a much more regional and strategic approach to how and where new housing is allocated.
Deborah Urquhart (Con, Angmering and Findon), cabinet member for environment and climate change, said: “We may be the first area to be hit by water neutrality, but we will not be the last.”
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdShe thought the lack of urgency on the part of central government was concerning, adding: “As a nation we can’t go on like this.”
Paul Marshall (Con, Storrington), leader of the county council, believed even Natural England did not originally realise the significance of its position statement when it issued it last year.
The response from ministers to date was ‘not good enough’ and he called on the government to develop the policies and a road map to find solutions.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdHe suggested asking councils to build 70,000 homes in total ‘does not sound sustainable’ with all the challenges facing West Sussex.
The motion was approved by 54 votes to zero with two abstentions.
***NOT FOR PUBLICATION: This has been filed from Friday when Karen was absent and is fine to use with a staff reporter byline******