'Urgent' government action needed on West Sussex's water supply

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.

This 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’.

It 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’.

Andrew 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.

And 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.

He 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.

Sarah 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.

Ms 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