Council response to phase 2 consultation of HDC’s Community Governance Review

Broadbridge Heath Parish Council has suggested altering the boundary with Slinfold so that the Lower Broadbridge Farm development site (133 houses) would be transferred to their parish. You can access the map here

Below is the Parish Council’s response, the deadline for comments is 7th September to which you can also respond via HDC’s website

SPC response to HDC’s second consultation on Community Governance Review

Slinfold Parish Council argues that the proposal to alter the boundary between Broadbridge Heath and Slinfold does not satisfy the relevant criteria for community governance arrangements. Furthermore, there is insufficient public support to progress these proposals. The HDC Committee report stated 6 responses had been received which is not enough to progress the plans which would have such a detrimental impact on Slinfold Parish.

1. Reflecting the identities and interests of the community

The area affected by the proposal forms part of a settled and established community that identifies with Slinfold. Residents in the affected area have longstanding social, practical and historic links with that parish. They use its facilities, participate in its community life, and are connected to its local institutions and networks.

There is insufficient evidence that the affected residents identify instead with Broadbridge Heath or that the proposed transfer would better reflect their interests. On the contrary, the proposal risks separating residents from the parish with which they have the closest and most meaningful connection.

2. Effective and convenient local government

The existing arrangements already provide clear, effective and convenient local government. The proposal has not demonstrated any material deficiency in the current boundary that would justify change.

Altering the boundary would introduce avoidable disruption and may create confusion for residents regarding representation, responsibility and parish affiliation. In the absence of a clear and evidenced governance benefit, the proposed amendment appears unnecessary.

3. Existing arrangements for community representation and engagement

The present arrangements already sit alongside established forms of local representation and engagement, including community groups, school networks, faith groups and other bodies.

These arrangements reflect the existing community structure and help support participation and representation. The proposed boundary change would cut across these established patterns rather than reinforce them. No convincing case has been made that the proposal would improve community engagement or align more closely with existing non-parish arrangements.

4. Community cohesion

The proposal risks harming community cohesion by dividing or reassigning an area that is already part of a coherent local community. Community cohesion is supported by continuity, shared identity, and clear local association. The proposed change would weaken those links rather than strengthen them.

Where there is local opposition to the proposal, this itself is an indication that the change may generate division rather than promote unity.

5. Size, population and boundaries

The existing parish boundary already reflects a coherent area in terms of community identity, settlement pattern and practical geography. The proposed revised boundary does not appear to create a clearer or more logical parish area.

The proposed change would destroy established neighbourhood patterns and upset a balanced parish structure. It would also disrupt population balance, electoral arrangements and the overall coherence of both parishes.

Conclusion

For these reasons, the proposed boundary change should not be supported. The existing arrangements better reflect the identities and interests of the community, provide effective and convenient local government, align with established community engagement arrangements, support community cohesion, and maintain a coherent parish structure in terms of size, population and boundaries.

Whilst the Parish Council has addressed the criteria for the review above, it is not acceptable for HDC to ignore the points raised in its initial consultation response which are material reasons highlighting the detrimental impact on Slinfold. No response has been provided about the clear conflict of interest from Councillor Brookes and the Council’s request for an independent Councillor to oversee the process. Therefore, we kindly request that the below points are strongly considered and that HDC rejects the proposed parish boundary alteration and retains the existing one.

SPC Initial Consultation Response

• The site at Lower Broadbridge Farm is currently within the Slinfold Parish and Ecclesiastic boundary of the Parish and has been for many years.
• The location forms a critical element of the Slinfold Neighbourhood Plan in Aim 1 Preventing Coalescence between Slinfold and Broadbridge Heath.  Removing the area would undermine our ability to protect this Aim which has already been significantly impacted by the Appeal application which HDC itself objected to.
• There are three significant implications if the boundary is moved:
• Slinfold Parish will miss out on a significant CIL contribution.  As the site is now consented and Slinfold has a made Plan it is eligible for 25% of CIL  receipts.  Forgoing this contribution will deprive our Parish of substantial and budgeted community infrastructure projects.  Broadbridge Heath does not have a Neighbourhood Plan.
• The new development will contribute a significant Council precept which will be lost from the residents of the Parish if the boundary is moved yet Slinfold will still have to deal with the implications of many more residents enjoying the Parish facilities.
• Housing numbers for the Slinfold Neighbourhood Plan, present and future rely on the contribution of the 133 new units from Lower Broadbridge Farm.  Without these numbers the burden to provide additional units in the Parish to make up the shortfall will have a material and detrimental impact on the vitality and rural character of the Parish.  These are fundamental Objectives of our made Neighbourhood Plan.
• To maintain an objective viewpoint, we would request an independent Councillor acts on this matter as Councillor Brookes has a clear conflict of interests.