West Hoathly Parish

including Highbrook, Selsfield, Sharpthorne, Tyes Cross and West Hoathly

NeighbOURhood PLAN

NeighbOURhood
PLAN

You are not currently signed-in to the Hoathly Hub. Sign in

Draft Plan Consultation

The consultation on the draft policies has now ended.

You can read the comments and responses for each policy below:

General comments

  • Andy and Anne-Marie Dawson
    [no opinion]
    Mon 28 Jul

    PLANNING FOR DEVELOPMENT OF HOUSES IN THE PARISH

    We are not against any of the proposed development in West Hoathly / Sharpthorne.

    We are, however, VERY strongly opposed to any development that will result in any street lighting, or lighting of sports areas.

    The parish council is well aware of the widely held preference by residents to avoid light pollution in the parish.

    Some potential traffic calming schemes may however require localised lighting for safety reasons but any such scheme would be consulted upon locally before being agreed.

     

  • West Sussex County Council - Chris Owen, Principal Planner
    [no opinion]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the West Hoathly Parish Neighbourhood Plan Second Draft for Consultation.

    In general, West Sussex County Council looks for Neighbourhood Plans to be in conformity with the District and Borough Councils’ latest draft or adopted development plans. The County Council supports the District and Borough Councils in preparing the evidence base for these plans and aligns its own infrastructure plans with them. The County Council encourages Parish Councils to make use of this information which includes transport studies examining the impacts of proposed development allocations. Where available this information will be published on its own website or that of the relevant Local Planning Authority.

    With regard to its own statutory functions, the County Council expects all Neighbourhood Plans to take due account of its policy documents and their supporting Sustainability Appraisals. These documents include the West Sussex Waste Local Plan, Minerals Local Plan and Local Transport Plan. The County Council also recommends that its published service plans, for example Planning School Places, are taken into account. Following a review of the Draft Neighbourhood Plan, it has been decided to submit officer comments on this occasion rather than a formal County Council response.

    Given that the Draft Neighbourhood Plan includes the proposed allocation of a number of small-scale housing sites, it should be noted that site-specific principles in the Plan will need to be tested and refined through the Development Management process (through the provision of pre-application advice or at the planning application stage) or as part of a consultation for a Community Right to Build Order. The draft Plan’s proactive approach to allocating land for development is supported in principle and informal officer advice on highway access has been provided for one of the draft Plan’s proposed sites for new homes. We are however unable to comment further on site-specific principles at this stage and it is recommended that the attached Development Management guidance [http://goo.gl/gqn3YP] be taken into account.

    The County Council currently operates a scheme of charging for roads and transport pre-application advice to enable this service to be provided to a consistent and high standard. Please find further information on our charging procedure through the following link:

    http://www.westsussex.gov.uk/leisure/getting_around_west_sussex/roads_and_pathways/plans_and_projects/development_control_for_roads/pre-application_charging_guide.aspx

    Noted

     

  • Highways Agency - Elizabeth Cleaver
    [no opinion]
    Mon 14 Jul

    Thank you for your email inviting the Highways Agency (HA) to comment on the second draft West Hoathly Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan 2014-2030.

    The HA is an executive agency of the Department for Transport. We are responsible for operating, maintaining and improving England's strategic road network (SRN) on behalf of the Secretary of State for Transport. The HA will be concerned with proposals that have the potential to impact the safe and efficient operation of the SRN.

    We have reviewed the consultation document and do not have any comment at this time.

    Noted

     

  • Clark
    [no opinion]
    Mon 14 Jul

    When considered individually it is difficult to conclude that any of the policies are badly wrong in that they all serve to focus future development in areas where it is least damaging and to protect more vulnerable sites.

    However when taken together I believe there might be a problem for the parish as a whole. This is because their combined effect seems to be that future development will always be, as is the case with the potential schemes highlighted in the plan/consultation, in the north and east of the parish, i.e. at the Sharpthorne end. Before adopting these policies I think councillors would do well to test them against possible future applications for development at sites within the south and west quadrants of the parish, even if at this stage no such applications have been mooted. Only in this way will it be possible to settle on a range of policies that will retain an acceptable balance of development across the parish as a whole.

    Site proposals elsewhere in the Parish were all fully explored and assessed during the last 6 months of the Neighbourhood Plan project starting with the landowners presentations and exhibitions in February. All sites went through the same detailed criteria, as required by the process. Speculatively including and assessing sites that have not been put forward when there are no obvious candidates could be a very time-consuming and unproductive exercise.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Coal Authority - Miss R A Bust
    [no opinion]
    Thu 10 Jul

    The Coal Authority is a non-departmental public body which works to protect the public and the environment in coal mining areas. Our statutory role in the planning system is to provide advice about new development in the coalfield areas to ensure that it is built safely and also protect coal resources from unnecessary sterilisation by encouraging their extraction, where practical, prior to the permanent surface development commencing.

    As you will be aware the West Hoathly parish area is outside of the defined coalfield and therefore The Coal Authority has no specific comments to make on the Neighbourhood Plan.

    In the spirit of ensuring efficiency of resources and proportionality it will not be necessary to provide The Coal Authority with any future drafts or updates to the emerging Neighbourhood Plan. This letter can be used as evidence for the legal and procedural consultation requirements.

    The Coal Authority wishes the Parish Council every success with the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan.

    Noted

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [no opinion]
    Wed 9 Jul

    The OUR in NeighbOURhood PLAN is there for a reason. It can be OUR plan if we/you support this. If we do not, it becomes THEIR PLAN. THEIR as in the local authority. Leave it to them, and you'll have very little say in what they put and where.

    A huge amount of time and effort has been put into this, by the Parish Council, the Task Force, and others.

    If you have no opinion, and believe that local people should have a say in what happens in their parish over the next 20+ years, please support this plan. You do not need to comment on anything - just indicate your support.

    Thank you to all those who have put in so much time to help build a great future for this Parish.

    Thank you and Comments noted

     

  • MSDC - Mark Bristow
    [no opinion]
    Tue 8 Jul

    Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the West Hoathly Neighbourhood Plan. Mid Sussex District Council welcomes the embracing of Neighbourhood Planning and the recognition of the potential benefits that such an opportunity presents to the community of West Hoathly. The District Council commends the effort afforded to delivering a Neighbourhood Plan for the parish.

    Mid Sussex District Council recommends that minor amendments are made to the wording of some policies and supporting text contained in the Plan. Particularly where those policies directly refer to specific numbered policies in the emerging District Plan or where some corrections are needed. Officers will be happy to guide and assist the Parish Council in this matter.

    Detail of the MSDC suggested amendments have been obtained from the District Council.

     

  • Southern Water - Clare Gibbons
    [no opinion]
    Tue 8 Jul

    New policy on the provision of infrastructure:

    We could find no policies to provide for new or improved infrastructure to support development. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) outlines the importance of achieving sustainable development and paragraph 177 states that ‘It is equally important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is delivered in a timely fashion....For this reason, infrastructure and development policies should be planned at the same time’.

    Although the Parish Council is not the planning authority in relation to wastewater development proposals, support for essential infrastructure is required at all levels of the planning system.

    On this basis, we propose the following policy provision:

    "New and improved utility infrastructure will be encouraged and supported in order to meet the identified needs of the community."

    "New residential and commercial development will be permitted only if sufficient infrastructure capacity is either available or can be provided in time to serve it."

    Advice from the LPA has been sought on this matter and a revised Plan will take this into account.

     

  • Bob Stewart
    [no opinion]
    Mon 7 Jul

    I would like to see the development of Finche Field into the village car park to have it tarmaced etc. so it is more car friendly. I would also like to see the issue of residential parking vouchers so that non-villagers would have to use the car park. This would prevent the build up of parked cars on North Lane and other various locations.

    The conservation of Finche Field as a rural green space has been seen as very important in earlier discussions of Plan contents. It is unlikely that the urbanising effects of a large area of tarmac car park plus probably lighting to give more encouragement for its use would attract widespread local support.

    A parking voucher system would have many enforcement, signage and commercial/tourism issues to be assessed and is neither inhibited nor needs to be included in the Plan.

    These are considerations for the Parish Council in association with WSCC outside the provisions of this Plan.

     

  • Sylvia Tucker
    [no opinion]
    Mon 30 Jun

    Something barely mentioned but that would provide local employment, help the 'aging' population & reduce traffic on the C319 (the elderly have to drive to Costcutters)is a shop in West Hoathly village. Could there not be a proposal to actively promote a way to provide this facility.

    There is nothing in this Plan to inhibit the re-establishment of a West Hoathly village shop. The Mid Sussex Local Plan seeks to enhance retail presence in villages. As you may know extensive efforts were made by a group of residents up to 2013 without success to date.

     

  • Caroline Rogers
    [no opinion]
    Tue 24 Jun

    Firstly I wish to offer some praise for all the work involved in managing this plan for our villages. Well done!

    I do not agree with the Bluebell Woods development plan - these are woods and must remain as woodland - but must acknowledge all the work done overall on the consultation.

    Thank you for your comments. Re Bluebell Woods local opinions vary widely on the quality of this area particularly the strip alongside the lane - hence the proposed restricted area for development leaving the majority of this site as it is.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [no opinion]
    Tue 17 Jun

    "In perpetuity" Credentials? Primogeniture or Borough English?

    Please consider a roundabout at the junction with Horsted Lane. This would

    1. slow traffic

    2. ensure an even traffic flow

    3. provide an emphatic entrance to Sharpthorne

    4. Ample space if agreed

    First point - there may be a misunderstanding here - the "in perpetuity" refers to the Affordable housing staying 50% allocated in preference to people with local connections. Second point - a roundabout or other physical traffic-slowing measure is certainly the type of thing the PC has been discussing with WSCC subject to funds being available. A roundabout has not yet been discussed specifically.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [no opinion]
    Mon 16 Jun

    WHP6, PHP7, WHP8, WHP9a and WHP9b - Parking in North Lane remains a problem. People in Selsfield Road are a menace. "Pinch line" at the junction of Selsfield Road and North Lane would be the answer. When will people realise this junction is dangerous. Do we "really" have to wait until a serious accident of fatality?

    Noted for consideration by the PC

     

  • Robert Bedwell
    [no opinion]
    Thu 12 Jun

    I am absolutely opposed to the assumption that we should just accept an additional 50+ houses in the area. While there is a concession to road improvement being funded as a result of the additional development, there are no clear details of what can actually be done. The reality is that the main road through Sharpthorne and West Hoathly is used as a Rat Run by traffic during commuting times. A significant number of commercial vehicles follow their GPS systems through the villages with little consideration of the effect on the residents. The queue to join the B2028 in the mornings often extends in excess of half a mile. The risk to parked vehicles, and pedestrians from vehicles making their way through Sharpthorne some mornings is considerable. Unless clear plans are made which restrict commercial and other commuting traffic through the villages at peak times, ( This would require action at the A22 and B2028 ) a housing plan which adds another 100 cars to the already congested village roads is totally unacceptable.

    This Plan cannot dictate specific traffic calming measures which will need to be agreed with WSCC Highways. The Parish Council applied for a through-HGV restriction in 2013 but the C319 characteristics do not come close to satisfying the WSCC criteria for this being agreed. The vast majority of traffic on the C319 is through traffic and the additional load from the limited development included in this draft Plan does not represent a significant additional load.

    The Plan has to address West Hoathly parish's needs over the Plan period. If it doesn't then the parish could be subject to speculative development which could result in far more development in less suitable locations.

     

  • Robert Mensinga
    [no opinion]
    Sun 8 Jun

    I generally support the Neighbourhood Plan for the good of the community and I must compliment the organisers for a clear and comprehensive presentation and all the hard work that no doubt has gone into this.

    Thank you

     

  • John comber
    [no opinion]
    Wed 4 Jun

    Again as a second draft, this has betterment on the first, as a team your time and commitment needs praise, for getting the policy to this stage, well done,.

    Thank you

     

WHP1 : Landscape

Development that detracts from the openness and character of the landscape will not be permitted. Particular attention will be given to those points and spaces identified on Map B.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Imperative that strategic gaps be left between existing communities especially West Hoathly and Sharpthorne

    The retention of the "Local Gap" was among the criteria used in the new homes site assessments.

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [no opinion]
    Mon 14 Jul

    We recognise the sensitivity of this location and its position within the High Weald AONB. Sharpthorne has previously been identified as a principal village within the AONB and will need to accommodate a proportion of Mid Sussex’s future housing need. We note that the Plan will seek to resist development which detracts from openness and character of the landscape and clearly each site will need to be assessed on its individual merits.

    The goals of this Neighbourhood Plan are, among other topics, to seek to address the sustainability and housing needs of the locality. That is the basis set out by the LPA, MSDC. The Plan has sought to positively seek opportunities to meet the parish’s needs whilst recognising the constraints of the local landscape and heritage.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Whilst utility services infrastructure is vital to our community, we do not want to see new unsightly pumping stations in every road, nor do we want to see these vital things spoil the character of our villages. Control must be maintained locally, but understanding that demands change over time.

    Some explicit allowance for utility services may need to be made in the Plan text.

     

  • Southern Water - Clare Gibbons
    [no opinion]
    Tue 8 Jul

    Southern Water understands West Hoathly Parish Council’s desire to protect the landscape in the Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB). However, we can not support the current wording of this policy as it could create a barrier to statutory utility providers, such as Southern Water, from delivering its essential infrastructure required to serve existing and planned development.

    Paragraph 166 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) sets out developments in AONB would be permitted in exceptional circumstances and where it can be demonstrated they are in the public interest. On 6th March 2014, Nick Boles in a written Ministerial Statement stated that ‘....we expect national parks and other local planning authorities to take a positive and proactive approach to sustainable development, balancing the protection of the landscape with the social and economic wellbeing of the area’.

    Southern Water considers that should the need arise, the provision of essential wastewater or sewerage infrastructure (e.g. a new pumping station) required to serve new and existing customers is in the public interest. There are limited options available with regard to location, as the infrastructure would need to connect onto existing networks. The National Planning Practice Guidance recognises this scenario and states that ‘it will be important to recognise that water and wastewater infrastructure sometimes has locational needs (an often consists of engineering works rather than new buildings) which mean otherwise protected areas may exceptionally have to be considered’.

    We made similar representations in respect of the Arundel Neighbourhood Development Plan and the examiner agreed that utility infrastructure can represent very special circumstances.

    Although the Parish Council is not the planning authority in relation to wastewater or sewerage development proposals, support for essential infrastructure is required at all levels of the planning system.

    To ensure consistency with the NPPF and National Planning Policy Guidance, we propose the following additional wording for policy WHP1:

    "Essential utility infrastructure will be permitted, where the benefit outweighs any harm, or it can be demonstrated there are no reasonable alternative sites available."

    MSDC advice has been sought on these points and appropriate changes will be incorporated into a revision of the Plan document prior to the next stages of the Plan's progress.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP2 : Historic Lanes

Any development permitted should not have an adverse impact along the parish lanes (see Map A) and should do no material harm to the historic and rural character of these lanes. Particular attention should be given to boundary treatment, driveway access, surfacing, soft landscaping and retention of hedging.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • terence henderson
    [support]
    Fri 11 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Would like to see this policy include bridal paths and lanes used by pedestrians for recreational use

    Some suggestions of specific routes would be useful to receive.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Sightlines of our historic lanes should be maintained well - privately and local authority-managed hedging has become a headache for those wanting to see ahead, and/or needing to turn corners. Safety is key, but respecting the historic nature of lanes is key too.

    This is a matter for the Parish Council to pursue with WSCC Highways and need not conflict with the Plan policy.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: "Adverse impact" should include traffic damage to verges, trees and hedges and also congestion resulting from building and other activities particularly those concerning horses.

    These policies are used in relation to a planning application which would include building development and changes of use of land.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP3 : Recreational Spaces

Policy DP22 of the Mid Sussex District Plan will apply and development that does material harm to the recreational open spaces within the parish as identified on Map B will not be permitted.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    The recreational space we have in the Parish has on more than one occasion attracted proposals for car parking, and even a shop/community cafe. Whilst many appreciate the wishes of many for this to happen, it opens the gates for further proposals, extensions of space used and non-recreational development. I too would like to see how we can define 'material harm' as harm is completely down to personal interpretation. Car parking on North Lane Rec once took place adjacent to North Lane for the footballers. Not sure how that stopped, but parking issues will certainly put locals off from using our recreational space. Path / foot access around the recreational spaces is important - particularly those with pushchairs and young children. This policy should help/benefit those who enjoy these spaces.

    No very precise definition of the term "material harm" but suggest "serious and/or long-lasting (/ permanent) damage". Better footway access on North Lane Rec is currently under consideration by the Parish Council. The PC takes its stewardship of the parish-owned land very seriously and is committed to retaining the amenity provided by the sites concerned.

     

  • Ken Allfree
    [support]
    Mon 7 Jul

    It is important to define "Material Harm" regarding recreational open spaces. North Lane Rec & Finche Field need to be protected as they are owned by the parish.

    No very definite definition of the term "material harm" but suggest "serious and/or long-lasting (/ permanent) damage". The PC takes its stewardship of the parish-owned land very seriously and is committed to retaining the amenity provided by the sites concerned.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP4 : Rights of Way

When new development is under consideration, opportunities will be sought to enhance the rights of way network.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Rights of way important to those who enjoy walking - a healthy activity

    Noted

     

  • Colin Gibbs
    [support]
    Sun 13 Jul

    Any enhancement of the track from Bluebell lane south to Top Road to support the proposed housing development in Blubell Woods should have barriers to restrict any motorised vehicles.

    The detail of this will need to be looked at when an actual planning application is put forward for approval to ensure the safety of PRoW users and the avoidance of inappropriate motorised vehicle use.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [no opinion]
    Tue 17 Jun

    Plans for maintenance? Re-routing?

    This may involve re-routing or additional routing. Designated Public Rights of Way are the responsibility of WSCC, permissive paths are the responsibility of the landowner.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP5 : Visualisations

It is a requirement of any proposed development for 1 or more new dwellings or more than 100 sq. m of new commercial floor space in the Conservation Areas or outside the village development boundary that at least 2 three dimensional visualisations of the proposed development, in situ, be provided as part of any planning application.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [no opinion]
    Mon 14 Jul

    It is recognised that new residential development in and around the village development boundary needs to be carefully assessed; it is acknowledge that suitable visualisations will be required to assess this in more detail.

    Noted

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [no opinion]
    Tue 17 Jun

    Photos as well as architects/planners hopes

    Photos of existing site / buildings would be good practice and should be encouraged but current central government guidance is not to make planning applications excessively onerous.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP6 : New Homes - Parking

Proposals for new housing developments will have adequate on-site parking to meet current and future needs unless alternative and accessible car parking arrangements can be made which do not add to on-street congestion.

1-2 bedroom dwellings - 2 on-plot car parking spaces

3 + bedroom dwellings - 1 on-plot car parking space per bedroom

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Most desirable

    Noted

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    We recognise that a balance needs to be achieved within new residential development between the proportion of parking provision and compliance with local policy.

    The current parking standards are based upon the Development and Infrastructure Supplementary Planning Document, 2006 and propose the following maximum standards: 1 bed dwellings – 1 car space, 2 and 3 bed dwellings - 2 spaces per dwelling, 4 bed dwellings – 3 spaces per dwelling and 5 or more bed dwellings – to be assessed individually.

    We are concerned that the policy, as currently drafted, is overly restrictive with a level of provision which far exceeds current policy. We would suggest that the policy should be more flexible with aspirational targets and the ability for each site to be assessed on its individual merits.

    As has been described in the Plan and has been clearly evident for many years, West Hoathly and Sharpthorne have some severe parking related issues brought about by very limited public transport options and increasing car ownership. Also, existing policies have demonstrably contributed to the current issues and failed to mitigate them. It is therefore essential that any new developments cause no additional parking problems and therefore need to be set out with more parking than might "normally" be the case.

     

  • Richard Squibbs
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    In my experience of new estates, the number of proposed car parking spaces is inadequate, once allowance is made for children of driving age living at home and for visitors. In order to avoid misery for the new residents and overspill parking elsewhere within the village, the number of spaces needs to be increased. It is accepted that this may reduce the number of new houses on any plot, but it will improve the quality of life for existing and new residents.

    The number of parking spaces in the policy have already been pushed higher than normal based on the existing parking issues in the villages. Whether they can be increased further without being challenged on viability is doubtful as that would further reduce densities and potentially result in inefficient use of land, which is a key consideration of development proposals.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Can additional parking spaces be allowed for guests as part of each development

    The parking requirements were set to try to accommodate this requirement already although no reasonable parking space allocation will allow for large family/friend gatherings at peoples homes.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    This is critical. Let's not make parking any worse than it already is in the Parish.

    Noted – exactly what this policy is seeking to achieve.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP7 : Protection of Parking

Developments within the defined village boundary which propose to remove recognised off-road parking spaces on a site will only be permitted where alternative provision is made which increases or maintains the number of accessible parking spaces available on or within the immediate vicinity of the site.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    Great idea but will it be implemented

    If included in an adopted (ie referendum-approved) Neighbourhood Plan, this policy would be applied by MSDC to all new planning applications for this area.

     

  • Peter Johnson
    [support]
    Sun 15 Jun

    Street parking is a major issue in Sharpthorne as well as West Hoathly, especially along Top Road. Although this can be a benefit in slowing down through traffic, it can also be a major hazard to pedestrians and cars turning out of driveways through the village. A plan for parking for residents in Top Road without off-street parking is required

    Addressing instances of existing insufficient parking associated with properties would be difficult without new land for this purpose. The Plan seeks to avoid the problem being aggravated by the loss of existing spaces and by ensuring new homes are well provided for.

     

WHP8 : Goods Vehicle Traffic

New development which generates additional HGV/LGV traffic will be required to demonstrate that the proposal does not have an adverse impact on the local road network.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    It would be helpful if HGV (not PSV) traffic through The Hollow could be restricted to vehicles travelling to and from local destinations

    In 2013 West Hoathly parish council tried to get agreement to an HGV through traffic restriction but the characteristics of the roads did not fulfil the WSCC Highways criteria for such a restriction. It is therefore unlikely that such a scheme can be achieved.

     

  • terence henderson
    [no opinion]
    Fri 11 Jul

    no opinion - no comment supplied.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Betty Nickolls
    [support]
    Mon 7 Jul

    but must include HGV/LGV already using C319 as a cut-through to the M23

    In 2013 West Hoathly parish council tried to get agreement to an HGV through traffic restriction but the characteristics of the roads did not fulfil the WSCC Highways criteria for such a restriction. It is therefore unlikely that such a scheme can be achieved.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: This must also apply to "development" of activities such as horse schools, polo practice grounds, increase of existing industrial operations etc.

    They will apply wherever planning approval is required such as changes of use of land or buildings.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    With addition that access on C319 through the villages is for access only for HGV. This would help alleviate the rat run by TNT and other companies which use as a bypass from Crawley Industrial Estates

    In 2013 West Hoathly parish council tried to get agreement to an HGV through traffic restriction but the characteristics of the roads did not fulfil the WSCC Highways criteria for such a restriction. It is therefore unlikely that such a scheme can be achieved.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    Can West Hoathly Parish Council have an influence

    If included in an adopted (ie referendum-approved) Neighbourhood Plan, this policy would be applied by MSDC to all new planning applications for this area.

     

WHP9A : Road Improvements

Community Infrastructure Levy, raised from new housing developments, will be focused on the highways most affected as a result of those developments and be used to help fund schemes that reduce traffic speeds and volumes; improve the provision of pavements and access for pedestrians and cyclists; and improve the well-being of local residents.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Rona Parry & Richard Sorrell
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    It is vital that traffic calming or diverting measures are put in place. We can't be the only village in the country that has this problem, so surely we can mirror how others have solved this issue elsewhere?

    This has been and continues to be a primary concern and objective of the PC. Various improvements have been made and more are already scheduled. An adopted Neighbourhood Plan will assist in providing the wherewithal to realise further improvements.

     

  • Janey Mykura
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    I support suggested improvements but want MORE to be done to reduce the speed and volume of traffic through Sharpthorne and Top Road. The junctions at Vinols Cross and opposite Sharpthorne Garage are so dangerous for both pedestrians and cars and the current proposals do not do enough to address the problem.

    Improvements to the Vinols Cross preferred pedestrian crossing are already planned for introduction during the 2015-16 County Council year. WSCC Highways accept the need to implement physical traffic calming measures on Top Road as one of the "Infrastructure Priorities" for the area but to some extent more rapid progress depends on funding generated by local housing developments.

     

  • Colin Gibbs
    [support]
    Sun 13 Jul

    Speed restriction of 20mph should be imposed in both directions on Top Road, Sharpthorne from Horsted Lane to Higbrook Lane. Speed bumps should be installed to assist the restriction.

    There would be implications for more extensive street lighting from multiple speed bumps along the road. a 20mph Traffic Regulation Order is something for the PC to explore with WSCC Highways as part of the traffic calming plans but does not need to be prescribed in this Plan. However, the C319 poses various problems regarding enforcement.

     

  • Claire Worthington
    [no opinion]
    Fri 11 Jul

    I was under the impression we were unable to have traffic calming and speed calming methods introduced to Top road as there wasn't any street lighting thus supposedly making it dangerous. How does this situation change if we have the new housing built ? I fear not only will we have to put up with the new housing and all the extra traffic it will cause but will then be told we can have the money for traffic calming but it can't be installed until we have street lighting ! I still feel strongly that until we get the volume of traffic and the continous speeding sorted on Top road we shouldn't entertain the idea of building ! Why can we not have camera signs at both ends of the villages and mobile cameras ?

    Re the need for street lighting - some localised lighting over physical traffic calming features may be necessary but wholesale lighting of the streets would not be essential. Speed cameras have been investigated but among other reasons the road layout is not conducive to their use. The Parish Council is pursuing all possible approaches to assist in the goal of reducing traffic speeds and the weight of traffic.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Bring it on! Safer roads is something we all want - 20MPH through the villages - not sure how we could control this, but I like the idea! More visibility of speed limits, e.g. gates, improved West Hoathly/Sharpthorne signage etc... entering the Parish - funded by new housing schemes - why would we say no?

    Noted

     

  • Ken Allfree
    [support]
    Mon 7 Jul

    The aspirations of the parish should be for 20mph speed limits where possible. This should be stated.

    Traffic Regulation Orders for further and/or changed speed restrictions can be evaluated and pursued by West Hoathly Parish Council at any time. They are not inhibited by this Plan and could not be mandated by it.

     

  • Anthony Grainger
    [support]
    Fri 4 Jul

    North lane is a traffic problem due to on road parking needs a car park in the rec

    As was demonstrated during the discussions regarding a West Hoathly village community shop there is no clear community consensus on alternative uses for even part of North Lane Rec. The Parish Council continues to explore possible approaches to ease the problems caused by traffic and parking in this and other areas of the parish.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Amanda staples
    [support]
    Sun 15 Jun

    Fantastic to think we could reduce the volume and speed of traffic but this will only happen once the traffic stops using the C319 as a short cut from A22 to Gatwick.

    Appropriate traffic calming measures can address speeds but volumes will depend on relative convenience of routes.

     

WHP9B : Planning Obligations

Planning applications for all development proposals submitted prior to the adoption of the Mid Sussex Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule coming into force will be expected to contribute towards addressing the following infrastructure needs that would arise as a result of the growth proposed:

• Reduction of traffic speeds and volumes along Top Road;

• Improvement in the provision of pavements and access for pedestrians and cyclists;

• Improvements to the highways most affected as a result of these developments.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Douglas Denham St Pinnock
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    Anything that slows and discourages traffic on the C319 without causing queuing and noise (eg speed bumps and rumble strips) such as building pavements, creating gentle chicanes and making the Selsfield turning a T junction, not a sweeping turn that gives the impression of a fast road, would be welcome. Reclaiming the c319 as a meandering country lane, especially in the built up part, including The Hollow, would result in self policing - reducing both speed and volume of traffic.

    Noted

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [no opinion]
    Mon 14 Jul

    We note that the Plan states that new development will be expected to contribute towards a number of specific infrastructure projects within West Hoathly Parish.

    In advance of Mid Sussex adopting a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule, any contributions should accord with the tests outlined in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF). Paragraph 204 confirms that planning obligations should only be sought when they meet the following tests: necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

    Noted

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    100% support

    Noted

     

  • Betty Nickolls
    [support]
    Mon 7 Jul

    Please include Selsfied Road as 40mph signs are useless

    The underlying principle of this policy is that funded improvements are directed specifically towards the issues arising from the new homes identified by policy WHP13.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: Perhaps increased activity related to some of the recreational, business (eg The Cat) and industrial activities (eg the quarry) should also be subject to some kind of levy to be used similarly.

    Unless there are changes requiring planning consent and the changes impose clear additional infrastructure requirements this is unlikely.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [oppose]
    Mon 16 Jun

    Until East Grinstead By Pass implemented

    There is no current plan for such a by-pass.

     

WHP10 : Bluebell Railway

Proposals by the Bluebell Railway to establish a halt at the previous West Hoathly Station Site will be supported, subject to there being early consultation with the Parish Council and community of West Hoathly so that the planning application can limit parking availability and passenger vehicle access.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Personally I would support a station or halt close to the site of the old West Hoathly station

    Noted

     

  • Rona Parry & Richard Sorrell
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    Station Road cannot cope with additional traffic and the lack of parking spaces would be an issue. Unless the Bluebell Railway would be prepared to run a reasonably priced, regular network that aligned to commuter trains from East Grinstead every day of the week, then this will not help reduce the commuter traffic on the roads.

    The draft Plan makes provision for the possibility of a halt with conditions to minimise traffic and parking issues. It is seen by many as a benefit and opens various commercial opportunities for tourism related activity to enhance the economic vitality of the parish.

     

  • Janey Mykura
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    i support the proposal to revive the West Hoathly halt.

    Noted

     

  • terence henderson
    [support]
    Fri 11 Jul

    We would welcome a Bluebell Railway Halt/Station at West Hoathly.

    Noted

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [oppose]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Parking and access via Top Road to this area is already stretched beyond its ability to accept any more traffic.

    Any specific development application will need to satisfy WSCC Highways on the safety and practicality of the proposals in order to be approved.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [no opinion]
    Wed 9 Jul

    no opinion - no comment supplied.

     

  • Robert Bedwell
    [support]
    Thu 12 Jun

    Although likely expensive, the option of travelling to East Grinstead on the Bluebell Railway would slightly reduce the road traffic in the area. Also, provided that Residents Only parking is allowed on the roads around the station, and additional parking spaces are created on Railway land currently used for materials storage, there would be no obvious disadvantage to the scheme.

    Noted

     

WHP11 : Infill Housing

Housing developments within the development boundaries of West Hoathly parish (as shown in Map C) will generally be permitted, provided they have a range of dwelling sizes and in particular provide two and three bedroom dwellings that are suited to the needs of both young families and older residents. Any such developments will need to include affordable homes as required by District policy.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Providing design of new buildings in Conservation Areas fits in with existing buildings

    Policy WHP15 covers this point.

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    We recognise that infill housing provides an important source of urban capacity and could potentially meet a proportion of West Hoathly Parish’s development needs.

    The Plan identifies a number of larger sites (10+ dwellings) for future housing development, which land includes WHP13: WHCS_06 (Land adjacent to Cookhams). This specific site is located between established built frontages and was considered by Mid Sussex District Council as ‘infill development’ within their Mid Sussex District Council Site Review for West Hoathly, Jan 2014.

    A point of correction - WHCS_06 Land adjacent to Cookhams is outside the existing development boundary of Sharpthorne (as are the other two sites in this Plan). WHCS_06 is therefore NOT an "Infill" site and the MSDC wording was somewhat imprecise on this point.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [no opinion]
    Wed 9 Jul

    no opinion - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    If affordable homes benefit people with LOCAL connections, and those living in them respect our local Parish, I support this 100%.

    Affordable homes delivered as part of sites allocated in an adopted Plan would be 100% prioritised for occupants with local connections on first letting and 50% of the homes would be prioritised for occupants with local connections on subsequent lettings in perpetuity.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: Certain parts of the built up areas are already very tightly packed eg Hoathly Hill and infilling should be strongly restricted.

    The plan has special provisions for Hoathly Hill. The Conservation Areas are also protected from inappropriate development.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    With proviso that the social/affordable housing is targeted at LOCAL need and not just general MSDC waiting list. Highlighted recently where local couple have been moved from 3 bed semi in village to flat in Crawley Down and so lose village connection; new family have no connection in village - Ridiculous

    Cause for concern: Wording says Market and Affordable Housing but makes no reference to social housing purely for rent. This is a concern.

    Mid Sussex have agreed that the first letting of any new affordable housing within the parish which results from a market development allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan will be to people on the Housing Register who have a local connection. For any subsequent lets 50% of the homes will be prioritised for letting to people with local connections in perpetuity. Affordable Housing normally comprises 75% social rented homes and 25% social shared ownership tenure. See Affordable Housing definition in Neighbourhood Plan glossary on the website.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Robert Bedwell
    [oppose]
    Thu 12 Jun

    Access onto Top Road from new homes would just add to already overcrowded roads at peak times. This would be a safety concern, as well as adding to existing inconvenience.

    No specific locations are known at this time but any development application would need to satisfy WSCC Highways on the safety of access.

     

WHP12 : Housing Mix

Developments of 10 or more dwellings should provide a mix of dwelling sizes (market and affordable) that fall within the following ranges:

Dwelling SizeMarket HousingAffordable Housing
2-3 bed housesAt least 75%At least 80%
Other sizesUp to 25%Up to 20%

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Believe adequate numbers of affordable houses to be very important

    Noted

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    The policy, WHP12, as currently drafted provides a specified mix for both market and affordable housing with a clear emphasis on the delivery of 2-3 bed houses. Whilst this proposed mix reflects the work undertaken to date by the Parish Council, we are concerned that this is overly restrictive and does not necessarily reflect current market demand.

    We appreciate that the proposed mix for affordable housing will need to reflect the Council’s latest evidence base (Housing Market Assessment 2009) and their current waiting list. However we strongly disagree with a local policy which seeks to restrict market housing in this manner.

    We would suggest that this mix is revisited following further consultation with the development industry and other key stakeholders. Our preference would be for greater flexibility to be introduced to allow individual developers to respond to specific characteristic of each site.

    As recognised in the first paragraph, the housing mix requirements are well-informed by the work done over the last 2.5+ years and the goals of the Plan is to satisfy the local requirements to support the sustainability goals of the community. To achieve this some of the current imbalances in the parish market housing stock need to be addressed by the Plan. Developer discretion still applies to 25% of the dwellings to allow responses to specific site characteristics.

    Clearly a wider demand would find sufficient people wanting larger properties; however, the main focus of the Plan is to address local needs, market and affordable, and these have more of a focus on smaller properties.

     

  • Richard Squibbs
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    The proportion of ‘affordable housing’ among the 2-3 bed housing is higher than required and should be reduced to avoid the developments becoming too uniform.

    The proportion of Affordable Housing is completely in-line with Mid Sussex - ie 30%. Of this 30%, 80% should be 2-3 bedroom is the additional requirement that this policy adds.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [no opinion]
    Wed 9 Jul

    no opinion - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    If affordable homes benefit people with LOCAL connections, and those living in them respect our local Parish, I support this 100%.

    Affordable homes delivered as part of sites allocated in an adopted Plan would be 100% prioritised for occupants with local connections on first letting and 50% of the homes would be prioritised for occupants with local connections on subsequent lettings in perpetuity.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: This is fine until owners get permission to extend and smaller properties continue to disappear and gardens get smaller.

    The intent is to try to encourage development design which will limit the chances for this to happen but it is probably impossible to avoid it altogether.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    With proviso that the social/affordable housing is targeted at LOCAL need and not just general MSDC waiting list. Highlighted recently where local couple have been moved from 3 bed semi in village to flat in Crawley Down and so lose village connection; new family have no connection in village - Ridiculous

    Cause for concern: Wording says Market and Affordable Housing but makes no reference to social housing purely for rent. This is a concern.

    Mid Sussex have agreed that the first letting of any new affordable housing within the parish which results from a market development allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan will be to people on the Housing Register who have a local connection. For any subsequent lets 50% of the homes will be prioritised for letting to people with local connections in perpetuity. Affordable Housing normally comprises 75% social rented homes and 25% social shared ownership tenure. See Affordable Housing definition in Neighbourhood Plan glossary on the website.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP13 : Sites for New Homes

Housing development for a minimum of 10 dwellings will be permitted on the sites allocated on map C at:

• WHCS_05 (Land North of Top Road)

• WHCS_06 (Land adjacent to Cookhams)

• WHCS_02 (Land known as Bluebell Woods)

provided that they meet the housing mix provisions specified in policy WHP12
and the site specific conditions listed below:

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Basically in support. Believe WHCS05 and WHCS06 should be developed first, ideally behind substantial hedges rather like the existing RUFWOOD development in Crawley Down. Only when 05 and 06 have been developed should 02 be considered.

    Noted. Attempting to build-in sequential phasing of sites allocated in Neighbourhood Plans is something that previous NP Examiners have rejected and the advice received on this Plan was that it should be avoided. Appropriate landscaping has been built into the site policies of this Plan.

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    We support the Parish in their aspiration to identify a number of key sites to help meet their future housing need.

    Whilst it is reasonable to expect these sites to come forward within the plan period, there is potential for one or more of these sites to be delayed or withdrawn. On this basis, we would suggest that the Plan makes provision for a contingency or reserve sites.

    Furthermore, we would suggest that the individual housing targets for the sites is expressed as a minimum figure rather than an absolute maximum. This should allow the developers for each site to make efficient and effective use of the developable land whilst also considering the impact on the wider village.

    We would also suggest that the precise boundary defining the developable area for each site should be defined following more detailed site specific analysis.

    As recognised in the first paragraph, the housing mix requirements are well-informed by the work done over the last 2.5+ years and the goals of the Plan are to satisfy the local requirements to support the sustainability of the community.

    MSDC as the LPA will provide for the contingency/reserve sites overall across the District.

    The parish is wholly within the HW AONB and the site housing numbers are designed to ensure that developments are not inappropriately densely developed.

    The precise position of the extent of the land to be developed will be determined as part of a planning application but it would not be expected to vary in any significant way from that indicated in the Plan.

     

  • Richard Squibbs
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    Given that the majority of new residents are likely to work in the Gatwick / Crawley area, these developments are situated at the wrong end of the village and thus are in conflict with WHP9B. In addition to this, it is likely that such developments will lead to more traffic to and from the school, particularly in inclement weather. The site that was proposed earlier this year at the west end of West Hoathly is within walking distance of the school and residents going to work would not, in the main, increase traffic along Top Road

    The Station Road junction is already busy and dangerous and these proposals will only exacerbate the problems.

    I believe that these considerations, in conjunction with the aspirations of WHP9B for traffic volumes along Top Road and elsewhere within the document more generally for the C319, mean that any perceived problems with the West Hoathly site, because it might be visible from the north (where exactly?), are of lesser importance and it is upon the West Hoathly site that our plans and efforts should be concentrated. To use Sharpthorne, the unfashionable end of the parish, as a dumping ground for all the housing unwanted elsewhere within the parish, is unacceptable.

    The site referred to [WHCS_04] was fully evaluated in the Sustainability Appraisal and all the details are included in that document which was published alongside this Plan. It is an unavoidable fact that West Hoathly village in general is one of the highest points in the landscape of Mid Sussex.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Mr Stephen Sykes (on behalf of Sharpthorne Community Action Group)
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    The Sharpthorne Community Action Group's ('SCAG') Response to the Proposed Sites (all in Sharpthorne) for New Housing

    1. NEW HOUSING.

    SCAG's position in relation to new housing is that IF it is considered that there is convincing evidence of need for as many houses as those proposed, we would support it as long as the houses are fairly allocated around the parish and that brownfield sites are prioritised. That said, we are not convinced that the 55 houses proposed for the parish has been made. For example, the PC's thinking about taking into account housing sites which already have planning consent and future projections to 2030 of ones which are likely to come on stream is not at all clear.

    2. FAIRNESS.

    We believe in fairness.

    We believe in the fair allocation of new housing around the parish. West Hoathly is a distinct village as is Highbrook. Each should take their fair share. It is so manifestly unfair to allocate all of the homes to one part of the village of Sharpthorne that it beggars belief that the PC is even proposing it.

    If the PC is of the view that there are no satisfactory sites available in the other villages - which SCAG would dispute - it should have a 5 year plan to proceed with just one of the Sharpthorne sites, and revisit this in 2020.

    The costs and benefits of new housing should be shared around the parish. The parish will benefit from new housing to support the school and local amenities. However, new housing can also have a 'cost' : eg construction noise, additional traffic on a busy and dangerous road, etc. It is manifestly fair to share the load by spreading the new homes around the entire parish so the costs and benefits are shared too.

    3. UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT - FAILURE TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT.

    As our Parish is entirely located within an AONB, we believe that greenfield sites should not be used for housing if brownfield sites are available.

    Greenfield sites can sometimes be the easiest option, but that does not mean that they are the best. It was the intervention of SCAG which led to several new landowners coming forward with potential brownfield development sites around the Parish - landowners who had not responded to the PC's prior overtures. This took a lot of time from the members of SCAG, but it shows what can be done.

    In the latest announcement of Government policy in this area, George Osborne said that the Government wished to "limit development on important green spaces by removing the obstacles to development on brownfield sites" (Mansion House speech, June 12th 2014).

    Cookhams is an important greenfield space. It has more than 100 trees, wild deer living in it and copious wildlife. It is the last greenfield site within the village with an open view of the Weald and Downs. It is hard to see how the PC's policy is compatible with Government policy to protect important significant greenfield sites.

    4. LACK OF DUE PROCESS.

    Members of SCAG participated in the Housing Taskforce convened by the PC. We explained at the outset our principled stance on fairness, spreading the load and brownfield and we played our part in good faith. However the process was fundamentally flawed.

    As sites were being ranked for suitability, SCAG members made the point that the exercise needed to be looked at in the round - ie gauging the impact of the proposed sites on the parish as a whole, rather than just looking at it one site at a time. Members of the group pointed out that this narrow approach could result - as it has in the present case - in an unfair result overall because all of them are located in one part of one village in the parish. The Convenor said that this was 'not relevant'! This approach flies I the face of community cohesion. A comprehensive review of this matter is urgently required.

    Additionally, members of the Taskforce were excluded from the final deliberations of the PC which lead to the proposal for three sites - all in Sharpthorne - being put forward. The process was not transparent. We do not know the rationale for proposing three sites or the numbers of home for each site. We do not know what discussions took place because we were not privy to them. That justice must be done and must be seen to be done is a fundamental principle of all public body deliberations. The current proposal is not transparent and cannot be supported.

    5. THE ROAD

    Top Road is a busy and dangerous road with a dropping bend as I t passes by the Cookhams site. The development of more housing on this road is simply unsupportable. The PC have talked about 'traffic calming' but have not supplied any information as to how this might work.

    In any case it is the volume of the traffic that is a big part of the problem, as well as the speed (a top speed of 68mph and the majority of drivers speeding as they come past Cookhams).

    6. NOT LISTENING

    In the course of three weeks during the Spring of 2013 a petition against the development of the Cookhams site was signed by over 220 people. One parish councillor said to a SCAG member that the PC does not pay much attention to petitions. Petitions are a representation of popular will. The PC need to listen more to what their local constituents are saying. Sharpthorne does not want all this new housing. There is too much pressure on Top Road already. This would be the straw that breaks the camel's back - or that leads to the roads of Sharpthorne seizing up.

    7. COOKHAMS.

    Last but not least there is Cookhams. All of the many reasons why Cookhams is not suitable for housing have been explained and relayed to the PC - road, use of valued greenfield, wildlife, fairness, AONB and against government and planning policy, etc.

    We think it matters that when the PC invited landowners to present their case for developing their land to the community in February 2014, the owner of Cookhams refused to do so. That deprived the community of the opportunity to ask questions and to understand what is proposed. The landowners of all of the other sites - about 10 in total - either attended or submitted a written proposal for their sites.

    The landowner at Cookhams has completely failed to engage with nearby residents and the PC. We have not seen a development plan or so-called traffic calming proposals.

    We think that it is not appropriate for the landowner to be 'rewarded' with inclusion in the Neighbourhood Plan.

    1.New Housing

    All of the existing approved developments were considered as part of this Plan process. None would yield any "Affordable" homes and very few any modestly-sized homes. The outlook for any potential organic growth would follow a similar pattern.

    2. Fairness

    The Task Force consensus view was that the parish represented one community and that the concept of "fairness" carried no planning weight. The only defined built up areas in the parish are those of West Hoathly and Sharpthorne - everywhere else (Selsfield, Tyes Cross, Highbrook etc) is designated "countryside" areas and as such require higher levels of justification for new development than areas adjacent to existing built up area boundaries. The Plan would be on a 5 yearly review but the prospect of a 5 year only Plan would not be viable from an effort and cost point of view and would leave too much planning uncertainty.

    3. Unsustainable development

    Greenfield/brownfield considerations formed part of the housing site assessments as part of the parish sustainability appraisal. However, "brownfield" cannot be seen as a trump card. Employment and local services opportunities also have to be considered and the implications of reallocated existing commercial sites for housing and therefore requiring the commercial activity to be moved elsewhere.

    The search for potential sites approached every associated landowner who had either previously been known, or who had put forward a site as a result of the SCAG activity or otherwise came forward. All were asked to submit details of the land involved and all such sites were included in the site assessments as part of the sustainability appraisal.

    4. Lack of Due Process

    Every decision related to the draft Plan has been taken in full public view either at Task Force meetings or against properly advance-published agendas at Parish Council meetings. If there are any concerns on the process, the matter and evidence should be submitted to the proper authorities at MSDC. All decisions and their rationale are recorded in notes and minutes which are publicly available on the website.

    5. The Road

    Any planning application put forward for any of the allocated sites will need to satisfy WSCC Highways re sight-lines and safety among other aspects. The specifics of traffic calming measures to be implemented are not within the remit of the Plan but will be decided in conjunction with WSCC Highways taking account of appropriate Highways guidelines and the best available advice. During the site assessments an opinion was obtained from WSCC Highways regarding the potential for an acceptable highways access from the Cookhams site. Their preliminary assessment was that based on a "worst case" it would be possible but that further detailed investigations were advised.

    6. Not Listening

    As a result of the 2013 draft Plan consultation and representations by SCAG the Neighbourhood Plan project has taken another year or more evaluating site options in an open, transparent and professionally informed way.

    7. Cookhams

    Despite the views of SCAG many in the parish community regard the land adjacent to Cookhams as an eminently suitable site for housing - particularly now that the maximum dwellings have been reduced from the 2013 level. This is not a question of rewarding a landowner but of objectively assessing the various sites put forward against the previously established parish sustainability criteria.

     

  • Dom Howard
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    Why have all the sites in West Hoathly been discounted and only those in Sharpthorne considered? West Hoathly must take up its fair share as well. While Cookhams makes complete sense as a development site, the other suggestions are poorly thought out pie in the sky thinking to carve out capacity where there is none - all to salve the ageing NIMBYists in West Hoathly at Sharpthorne's expense.

    The detailed and complete rationale for sites chosen and the assessments of all the sites considered is included in the Sustainability Appraisal which was published alongside this draft Plan and is to be found on the Hoathly Hub or you can request a copy from the Parish Office.

    The Community Task Force which was involved in the site assessments with independent consultant support consisted of attendees from across the parish.

    More than half of the current parish councillors are in fact Sharpthorne residents.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Janey Mykura
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Martin Blackwell
    [oppose]
    Fri 11 Jul

    Strongly oppose the building of new homes in the village. Keep Sharpthorne a village and don't compromise the tranquil rural setting that residences enjoy.

    Without some development of the type outlined in the parish the issues caused by the current demographic pattern will probably just become more acute. This draft Plan sets out to reverse the established trend in order to allow the community to thrive. Without a Neighbourhood Plan it is probable there would also be developments but the developments would not be of the type nor in the locations desired. The detailed process that has taken place assessing the various sites put forward has ensured the sites selected will minimise the adverse impacts of the development.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [oppose]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Bluebell lane is not capable of accepting any further traffic by car and and any further development would have a dramatic affect on the use of this lane by horse riders and walkers

    How traffic leaving or entering the new homes would be arranged will be a key matter for consideration of the site proposals as an when they come forward for planning consent. WSCC Highways approval of access design will be an important part of deciding on any application.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    This has been managed in an unbiased and 100% fair way - I can personally vouch for this. The independant consultant assisting us with this process was excellent, given the variety of opinion.

    Comments noted

     

  • Anthony Grainger
    [oppose]
    Fri 4 Jul

    More houses would only course more traffic problems to an already dangerous road

    The majority of traffic in the parish is through traffic. The increase resulting from limited new development represents a small increment in the total volume but the opportunity to address through traffic speeds and behaviour would be expected to outweigh it and result in an overall improved local experience for residents.

     

  • Margaret Worthington
    [no opinion]
    Thu 26 Jun

    Why have 3 sites been chosen that are relatively close to each other? Access to any site in the villages is a huge problem. With three so close together the traffic problems in this area will be greatly increased and especially with the risks associated already at Station Road/Top Road junction. Highcroft Road often has problems in obtaining access without risk of accident.

    These sites were selected after an extensive, open and professionally advised process. The site particularly affecting Station Road is the smallest in terms of housing numbers to minimise traffic issues arising from it among other reasons. The fact is that in a small parish the sites are inevitably going to be relatively close to each other. It will be for WSCC highways to approve or not a specific planning application from a traffic safety point of view.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    With proviso that the social/affordable housing is targeted at LOCAL need and not just general MSDC waiting list. Highlighted recently where local couple have been moved from 3 bed semi in village to flat in Crawley Down and so lose village connection; new family have no connection in village - Ridiculous

    Cause for concern: Wording says Market and Affordable Housing but makes no reference to social housing purely for rent. This is a concern.

    Mid Sussex have agreed that the first letting of any new affordable housing within the parish which results from a market development allocated in a Neighbourhood Plan will be to people on the Housing Register who have a local connection. For any subsequent lets 50% of the homes will be prioritised for letting to people with local connections in perpetuity.

    Affordable Housing normally comprises 75% social rented homes and 25% social shared ownership tenure. See Affordable Housing definition in Neighbourhood Plan glossary on the website.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [oppose]
    Mon 16 Jun

    This is a village. No bigger please.

    In developing this Plan there has been widespread support for some expansion of the number of homes in the parish - especially Affordable Homes. This is in order to help sustain key facilities and services which are valued by residents and to provide lower cost new homes for downsizing older residents and adult offspring of current residents.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    Good for local school

    This is part of one of the sustainability goals of the Neighbourhood Plan.

     

WHP13a : WHCS_05 (Land North of Top Road)

{site-specific condition associated with WHP13}

• The design of the road frontages and vehicular entrance to the site should encourage traffic calming and support the parish initiative to introduce soft landscaping features along the C319 road.

• Pedestrian access from the rear of the development should be provided to the Sharpthorne Old Playground and to link to a pavement from Glenham Place to Station Road along the north side of Top Road. (The feasibility of a pavement from Station Road to Glenham Place has been agreed in principle by WSCC).

• Legally enforceable provisions should be put in place in relation to the existing green protection along the northern boundary of the development site to minimise the impact on the landscape.

• No more than 24 dwellings should be developed on this site.

• The design of the development should reflect the rural character of the settlement and the surrounding countryside.

  • Stephanie Squibbs
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    I have concerns about the location. The site is opposite Horstead Lane which itself generates considerable traffic. It is logical that most residents are likely to be working in/commuting to the Gatwick/Crawley area and thus will contribute considerably to the heavy, congested traffic already passing along Top Road. The originally proposed site to the west of West Hoathly was a far more sensible location. On the housing mix, there could easily be in excess of 65 cars, not allowing for visitors. I also object to the insidious extension of the village boundary -where will it end?

    The vast majority of traffic (75% or more) passing along Top Road is through traffic not emanating from within the Parish. The increment from the limited developments in this Plan make a minor increase in the overall volumes.

    Regarding the site to the west of West Hoathly [WHCS_04], this site along with all the others was fully evaluated against the established sustainability criteria for the Parish and the results are contained in the Sustainability Appraisal published alongside this Plan. All the sites bar one that came forward for consideration were outside the established built-up area boundaries of the parish.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Janey Mykura
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Leanne & Elliot Andrews
    [oppose]
    Sun 13 Jul

    Sharpthorne is a quiet traditional village that doesn't require any more houses if it wishes to maintain its country village reputation.

    The traffic on Top Road is already very heavy. At peak times the village can become grid locked with cars, Sharpthorne cannot cope with more added traffic.

    Without some development of the type outlined in the parish the issues caused by the current demographic pattern will probably just become more acute. This draft Plan sets out to reverse the established trend in order to allow the community to thrive.

    Without a Neighbourhood Plan it is probable there would also be developments but the developments would not be of the type nor in the locations desired.

    The detailed process that has taken place assessing the various sites put forward has ensured the sites selected will minimise the adverse impacts of the development.

     

  • Martin Blackwell
    [oppose]
    Fri 11 Jul

    Sharpthorne is a small village and it should be maintained as such. The village infrastructure can not cope with any further development. Top Road is already too busy and houses off of top road would only add to the weight of traffic. Further the look and feel of the village would be compromised with the added development of properties on the eastern entrance to the village.

    Noise levels would increase in the immediate area to where I live and this is not welcomed. The country look of the area would also disappear which I am unhappy with.

    Without some development of the type outlined in the parish the issues caused by the current demographic pattern will probably just become more acute. This draft Plan sets out to reverse the established trend in order to allow the community to thrive.

    Without a Neighbourhood Plan it is probable there would also be developments but the developments would not be of the type nor in the locations desired.

    The detailed process that has taken place assessing the various sites put forward has ensured the sites selected will minimise the adverse impacts of the development.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Margaret Worthington
    [support]
    Thu 26 Jun

    Provided relevant traffic control is implemented

    This will certainly be a major consideration related to this site.

     

  • Mr Andrew & Mrs Lesley Perkins
    [support]
    Mon 23 Jun

    We fully support WHP13a. WHP13b and WHP13c.

    Noted

     

  • Chris Thompson
    [support]
    Mon 23 Jun

    Very important to protect the very well established trees which are at the rear of the houses in Highcroft Road and will form a 'border and screen' between the new houses and existing houses. These are a home to many birds and it would be unforgivable if they are not preserved.

    It would be sensible to add the retention of this line of trees to the site specific conditions for this site.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [oppose]
    Mon 16 Jun

    This is a village. No bigger please.

    In developing this plan there has been widespread support for some expansion of the number of homes in the parish - especially Affordable Homes. This is in order to help sustain key facilities and services which are valued by residents and to provide lower cost new homes for downsizing older residents and adult offspring of current residents.

     

  • Robert Bedwell
    [oppose]
    Thu 12 Jun

    Access onto Top Road from new homes would just add to already overcrowded roads at peak times. This would be a safety concern, as well as adding to existing inconvenience.

    Any new access onto Top Road would need to be approved by WSCC Highways and comply with their safety criteria.

     

  • walter johnson
    [support]
    Sun 1 Jun

    another good choice

    Noted

     

WHP13b : WHCS_06 (Land adjacent to Cookhams)

{site-specific condition associated with WHP13}

• The design of the road frontages and vehicular entrance to the site should encourage traffic calming and support the parish initiative to introduce soft landscaping features along the C319 road.

• The southern part of the site should be gifted to the Parish Council, or other appropriate community body, as an amenity space in perpetuity to ensure that the site is screened to the south and the open space is accessible to all.

• Co-operation is sought in establishing the necessary agreements to allow a public right of way through the site to link with existing footpath WH11.

• No more than 16 dwellings should be developed on this site.

• The design of the development should reflect the rural character of the settlement and the surrounding countryside.

  • Stephanie Squibbs
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    This seems a large number of properties for a relatively small area. I feel a maximum of 10 properties with adequate parking in this location would serve better, especially as access is at the brow of the hill and potentially dangerous. The additional volume of traffic likely to be passing along Top Road in a westerly direction is a concern.

    10 homes would represent a very low density for the size of the site and the additional homes would need to be allocated elsewhere in the Plan.

    The highways access point from this site has not been determined and would be the subject of a formal planning application in due course. This would need to satisfy WSCC Highways on the safety of the design.

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    We support the inclusion of Land Adjacent to Cookhams, as one of the key housing sites in the Plan. However, we are concerned that the policy seeks to restrict the quantum of development to no more than 16 dwellings. Mid Sussex District Council Site Review for West Horsley Parish, January 2014 highlighted that the site had potential for up to 25 dwellings.

    We considered that the policy wording is overlay restrictive and should be informed by detailed analysis of the site. As highlighted above, it is suggested that the policy should read “at least 16 dwellings”.

    We also note that the Parish Council anticipate that a proportion of the southern part of the site should be gifted to the Parish Council or other community body. We anticipate that a proportion of the site will need be provided as landscaping and amenity space and we will be happy to discuss with the Parish Council in due course.

    NB "West HOATHLY Parish". Whilst the MSDC site assessment theoretically concluded up to 25 dwellings given the intensely rural setting of the villages this level of density on this site would be inappropriate to the HW AONB area (see comments from HWAONB about this site).

    It is important that sufficient area remains at the southern part of the site for the purposes described, and at the road frontage to help contribute to the rural village look and feel that is sought to assist with traffic calming measures.

     

  • Janey Mykura
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    I support the limited number of new houses suggested and particularly the creation of an amenity space in perpetuity at the southern part of the site.

    Noted

     

  • Leanne & Elliot Andrews
    [oppose]
    Sun 13 Jul

    The Station Road junction on Top Road is already very dangerous due to the number of parked cars and traffic, this proposed site would mean another junction close to an area that is already struggling to cope with the volume of cars using it.

    Any planning application put forward for this site will need to have established a design for access to the Highway that satisfies WSCC Highways on safety and traffic flow grounds.

     

  • Martin Blackwell
    [oppose]
    Fri 11 Jul

    Building of these houses is not welcomed. It will compromise the appearance at the eastern entrance to the village. Furthermore the infrastructure tin the village is already stretched. Top Road will not cope with any further traffic, it's impossible to cross the road at the best of times and this will make matters worse.

    Without some development of the type outlined in the parish the issues caused by the current demographic pattern will probably just become more acute. This draft Plan sets out to reverse the established trend in order to allow the community to thrive.

    Without a Neighbourhood Plan it is probable there would also be developments but the developments would not be of the type nor in the locations desired.

    The detailed process that has taken place assessing the various sites put forward has ensured the sites selected will minimise the adverse impacts of the development.

     

  • terence henderson
    [support]
    Fri 11 Jul

    Please ensure the wood screening/ nature area is a fundamental and mandatory part of any planning approval.

    It is clearly part of this policy which would become part of the approval criteria for MSDC if this Plan is approved at a referendum.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    There is a lot of sense in building most of the allocation of new houses in one place at one time to reduce the upheaval and inconvenience.

    Noted

     

  • Margaret Worthington
    [oppose]
    Thu 26 Jun

    Station Road/Top Road already poses a problem and a risk. This site is too close to this problem

    This will be a matter for WSCC Highways to advise on and approve in relation to a specific development proposal.

     

  • Peter Hartley
    [support]
    Thu 26 Jun

    Generally support. I think this development should be laid back from the road so as to create a green space available to the whole community

    The current proposal is to provide this at the rear (southernmost) area of the site whilst also screening the site from views in from the surrounding countryside. More area taken up at the roadside will push the development further into the intended amenity space which would be available to the whole community. Nonetheless the site specific conditions could be amended to strengthen the support for soft landscaping along Top Road.

     

  • Mr Andrew & Mrs Lesley Perkins
    [support]
    Mon 23 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [no opinion]
    Tue 17 Jun

    Is 10 too many?

    Minimum of 10 represents a very low density for the size of the site. Fewer than 10 would likely mean that no "Affordable" homes would be included.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [oppose]
    Mon 16 Jun

    This is a village. No bigger please.

    In developing this plan there has been widespread support for some expansion of the number of homes in the parish - especially Affordable Homes. This is in order to help sustain key facilities and services which are valued by residents and to provide lower cost new homes for downsizing older residents and adult offspring of current residents.

     

  • Robert Bedwell
    [oppose]
    Thu 12 Jun

    Access onto Top Road from new homes would require significant expenditure to provide a safe entry/egress from Top Road, and would in any case just exacerbate the conditions on the already overcrowded roads at peak times.

    Any new access onto Top Road would need to be approved by WSCC Highways and comply with their safety criteria. Any expenditure associated with this would have to be made by the developer.

     

  • walter johnson
    [support]
    Sun 1 Jun

    a good choice

    Noted

     

WHP13c : WHCS_02 (Land known as Bluebell Woods)

{site-specific condition associated with WHP13}

• The site allocated is solely for dwellings fronting Bluebell Lane, as indicated on map C,

• No more than 15 dwellings should be developed on this site.

• The design of the development should reflect the rural character of the settlement and the surrounding countryside.

  • Stephanie Squibbs
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    The majority of properties in Sharpthorne are located down Station Road with 7 cul-de-sacs currently exiting into Station Road and thence into Top Road. The addition of 15 more homes with potentially 40+ cars in the very restricted area proposed seems utter madness! In bad weather the steep access roads become treacherous, and in the winters of 2011/2012 and 2012/2013 many residents of these roads parked their cars along Top Road for several days causing ever greater congestion and hazards to pedestrians.

    WSCC Highways will need to be satisfied that any proposed development's highways requirements are safely achieved. One of the reasons for only limited allocation of this site compared to the landowners proposal was to take account of the traffic implications on Station Road.

     

  • Mr and Mrs Holmwood
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    Where will contractors enter the site? At the bottom/along the Gravetye woods entrance, or further up Bluebell Lane? Bluebell Lane residents have just paid for the road, which is unadopted, to be upgraded. Therefore, I would hope that alternative access to the site would be available, or the road be upgraded by the contactor and adopted by the council. The road would need to widened to allow 2-way traffic. Thought must be given to the current residents, who already have difficulty passing each other if vehicles are delivering/emptying rubbish bins etc. We hope that the guidelines for WHP14 (extensions) would be applied to New homes too. Mid Sussex Local Plan Policy B3

    As the site is quite deep, it would be considerate to the current residents, to keep a woodland frontage to Bluebell Lane, and build the houses a bit further back into the site, so that we do not lose our rural outlook. This would help to minimise the visual impact of a new building site as set out in WHP1. MS Local Plan Policy B2

    The design of the homes should be in keeping with the present predominately Victorian homes, to maintain the areas character WHP15. MS Local Policy Plan B1

    By building on this land, you are actually proposing to reduce a local SANG location, that local residents use for dog walking and children use for playing.

    Has an environmental study been undertaken, to consider wildlife? Deer use this land to access the pond, which contains frogs, newts etc. Bats roost in many of the Cottages and use the woods for feeding. Snakes and slow worms are often seen basking in the grass verge

    Any planning application for a specific development on this site within the policy conditions of this Plan would need to provide for construction access and eventual resident access whilst also ensuring access for existing residents and their amenity. The policy seeks to retain the rural character but this could potentially be strengthened as suggested re frontages.

    The current site of privately owned land, with no permissive or other public rights of way over it, could not be considered a SANG location. Wildlife concerns will need to be addressed as part of a formal planning application for this site.

     

  • Lorraine Howard
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    The site is on woodland which needs to be protected. The site is on the edge of the village, would it be difficult to stop further and further development? There may be an issue with access for emergency vehicles. More vehicles using Station Road would make it much busier, there have already been several accidents over the last few years in this road. There is a very narrow stretch of road half-way down Station Road and cars have to be very careful when passing each other. The junction at Top Rd/Station Rd can already get congested. The extra vehicles as a result of this development would make Station Road and its junction with Top Road much more dangerous.

    The area for development is clearly limited on the plan map and text. The established woodland furthest from Bluebell Lane on this area of land and the buffer that would be required also helps to form an effective "planning barrier".

    WSCC Highways will need to be satisfied that any proposed development's highways requirements are safely achieved.

    The area is only being proposed in this plan for development after a detailed analysis of the options available within the Parish. The full details of the assessments of all sites considered are contained within the Sustainability Appraisal published on the Hoathly Hub alongside this Plan.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Dom Howard
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    Station Road already serves 7 different residential roads consisting of approx 180 houses, three separate industrial locations, several farms, the bluebell railway and the forestry commission land. We do not need any more development off this road, it is already operating beyond its safe capacity. With the recent works that have been ongoing at the water plant, the increased heavy traffic has led to several incidents were the road is at its most narrow above the tunnel, with large heavily laden lorries being driven at speed by drivers who don't know or care about the road layout causing substantial danger to other road users and pedestrians and wildlife.

    Why is the area of land even being considered for development anyway? Its woodland! The "opinion" that it is brownfield land is patent nonsense from a party with a vested interest in the development.

    There are believed to be 204 households currently served by Station Road. This site would add approx. 7.5%. Observations of the morning rush hour times at the junction of Station Rd with Top Rd have recently been undertaken. Volumes of traffic exiting Station Rd were as could be expected for 200+ dwellings and queuing times were not excessive. 15 dwellings would add approximately 5 additional exiting vehicles per peak hour. WSCC Highways will need to be satisfied that any proposed development's highways requirements are safely achieved.

    The area is only being proposed in this plan for development after a detailed analysis of the options available within the Parish including its “brownfield” status on which there was much debate. The full details of the assessments of all sites considered is contained within the Sustainability Appraisal published on the Hoathly Hub alongside this Plan or you can request a copy from the Parish Office.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Rona Parry & Richard Sorrell
    [oppose]
    Mon 14 Jul

    To echo many of the other comments:

    1. Station Road, especially the lower half, could not handle the increased traffic. The road is just wide enough for two cars now and lorries and delivery vans either drive over the verges/pavements or there are delays whilst someone has to pull over and wait. The current proposal would mean at least another 30 cars a day on this road, plus oil delivery tankers, delivery lorries etc. The entire length of Station Road can barely cope with the current traffic and the junction with Top Road is already a challenge - additional vehicles would add to delays and no doubt, accidents. The additional traffic would also add to noise levels and pollution in the area and affect the already overloaded C19 route.

    2. Parking and access to and around Bluebell Lane and surrounding area would also be an issue with additional traffic, as these areas were never designed for through traffic or any volume of traffic.

    3. The area is prone to flooding and in the past,we have seen residents digging channels to help ensure the water runs down Bluebell Lane into the woodland. Last winter the woodland was saturated but there was very little surface water at the bottom of the hill on the roads. Surely, the sights from around the country last winter have proved that building on flood prone land is not a good idea?

    4. Bluebell Lane is used by walkers, horse riders and the like - how safe will the area be in the future for visitors and residents with additional housing and traffic?

    5. As the village is also prone to power cuts, what provision has been made in the plans for additional housing to upgrade the electricity supplies?

    Whilst we totally understand the need for additional housing, the current plans do not seem to have considered or addressed the numerous issues raised here and in other residents' comments.

    1. WSCC Highways will need to be satisfied that any proposed development's highways requirements are safely achieved.

    2. Parking for additional dwellings would be adequately covered by the policy WHP6 of this Plan. Access design would be a matter to be proposed as part of a planning application for the site and would need to satisfy WSCC Highways re safety and traffic flow.

    3. Drainage provisions for the existing run-off and any new consequences of development will also need to built into a planning application.

    4. Safe co-existence of the current bridleway users will be a key planning application requirement.

    5. Utility infrastructure such as electricity and waste water is a matter for the planning applicant to address in due course and the responsibility of the utility providers to ensure service provision in line with their obligations to all existing and new dwellings.

     

  • Janey Mykura
    [support]
    Mon 14 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • John Knight
    [oppose]
    Sun 13 Jul

    This development is outside the natural boundary of Sharpthorne village and constitutes a loss of green space.

    All of the potential sites put forward for new homes bar one are outside the existing boundaries of the villages. Some were also disconnected from the existing built-up area.

     

  • Lesley Hepher
    [oppose]
    Sun 13 Jul

    Development will be outside the boundary

    Prior developments have been rejected on that basis

    Separation between the two villages has always been desirable

    Access is only via station road and blubell lane.

    Heavy traffic already

    HGV,s already going down to brickyard

    Bad bend just before Marpit,

    Lower part of Station Road becomes single track because of the cars parked

    Area of land at the bottom of Bluebell Lane used heavily by dog walkers and train spotters

    Bluebell railway need the access to maintain the track

    Bluebell lane is accessed by a narrow sharp lt hand turn not suitable for HGV's

    Bluebell Lane itself is a public bridleway with only one vehicle entrance and exit

    Bluebell Lane is to narrow as it stands for a new development

    Entrance to Station Road junction very busy especially at 8.00 am and 5.30

    All the potential housing sites put forward (bar one) are outside the existing built-up area boundary. The existing built-up area is to all intents and purposes "full".

    The policy for this site seeks to protect the rural setting of the area and any development planning application would need to satisfy this point.

    A specific planning application for this site will need to satisfactorily address how Bluebell Lane would be used for access and route for exit/entrance onto Station Road whilst conserving the rural nature of the location.

    Parking locations is something this draft Plan has sought to address over and above normal demands in recognition of the various existing parking issues around the parish.

    Drainage and water run-off handling will need to be addressed in a specific planning application for this site.

     

  • Leanne & Elliot Andrews
    [oppose]
    Sun 13 Jul

    As residents of Bluebell Lane we strongly oppose this proposal for a number of reasons. Bluebell Lane is a quiet picturesque lane that currently enjoys views into Gravetye woods. The proposed development would look totally out of place against the cottages and houses that currently stand on Bluebell Lane. There is also a large amount of wildlife living in these wood that should not be compromised for more houses.

    Bluebell Lane is a single track road that is in fact a bridal way, the lane is often busy with dog walkers, horse riders and ramblers, therefore it is unreasonable to consider the lane as a safe access road.

    Sharpthorne is already serving as a 'rat run' for traffic travelling from the A22 to the A264. At peak times Top Road is grid locked with traffic, the village cannot cope with more cars.

    Sharpthorne is a quiet traditional village, let's keep it that way and save the developing for the neighbouring towns.

    The policy for this site seeks to protect the rural setting of the area and any development planning application would need to satisfy this point. Such a planning application would also need to address any wildlife risks and how highways access to the new (and possibly existing) dwellings would be achieved recognising the bridleway use of the route.

    In developing this plan there has been widespread support for some expansion of the number of homes in the parish - especially "Affordable" Homes. This is in order to help sustain key facilities and services which are valued by residents and to provide lower cost new homes for downsizing older residents and adult offspring of current residents.

    If all new development is located in the towns in future, this parish is unlikely to thrive due to an ever ageing overall population, fewer children and will become a commuter dormitory / retirement community.

     

  • Phil Glynn
    [oppose]
    Sun 13 Jul

    The clue to this is in the title: Bluebell Woods. As a resident of this lane for the last 13 years is has been a privilege to live in this area of natural beauty. The inclusion of a wall of houses to obstruct this beauty for myself and all the other residents and users of this lane is abhorrent. Living in a terrace in close proximity to our neighbours and with the houses of Marlpit in our rear, one cannot understand the logic of the inclusion of houses into this lane. The impact on the rural nature through loss of woodland and animal life would be traumatic to this area and it's residents. As the majority of residents in Sharpthorne are aware the traffic along Station Rd is often difficult to pass due to Ibstock logistics and the lack of off road parking in the lower area--that along with the status of Bluebell lane as a bridleway makes any addition of further traffic a no-brainer. The impact on the rural nature through loss of woodland and animal life would be traumatic to this area and it's residents.

    The policy for this site seeks to protect the rural setting of the area and any development planning application would need to satisfy this point.

    Such a planning application would also need to address any wildlife risks and how highways access to the new (and possibly existing) dwellings would be achieved recognising the bridleway use of the route.

     

  • Angela Glynn
    [oppose]
    Sun 13 Jul

    I strongly oppose extending the boundary of the village by developing this established wooded area.

    The Bluebell Lane houses are already closely overlooked by their immediate neighbours, Marlpit Road and Bayhams Field - adding houses to the front aspect of the properties would make them overlooked on all aspects significantly impacting on the residential amenity of the properties.

    Traffic to Station Road is a significant concern, already access is restricted to Station Road below Marlpit Road due to parking, and traffic above that point is significant including the Brickwork traffic. This one access point from Top Road is not sustainable.

    Drainage is a significant problem on Bluebell Lane bridleway, and development of the wooded space will add to this.

    Although this proposal had been reduced to 10 or so houses once developed I believe that this would open the doors for further development into the woodland at a later date.

    I strongly oppose this proposed site.

    All the potential housing sites put forward (bar one) are outside the existing built-up area boundary. The existing built-up area is to all intents and purposes "full".

    The policy for this site seeks to protect the rural setting of the area and any development planning application would need to satisfy this point.

    A specific planning application for this site will need to satisfactorily address how Bluebell Lane would be used for access and route for exit/entrance onto Station Road whilst conserving the rural nature of the location.

    Parking locations is something this draft Plan has sought to address over and above normal demands in recognition of the various existing parking issues around the parish.

    Drainage and water run-off handling will need to be addressed in a specific planning application for this site.

     

  • Janet Rivers
    [oppose]
    Sat 12 Jul

    I am a resident of Bluebell Lane and I am putting in an objection to the building of houses in Bluebell Wood for the following reasons:-

    If access is required to these new houses off of Bluebell Lane then this is going to cause traffic problems in the Lane. This is a single track bridleway and we encounter problems now when you meet somebody in a car and have to pass. With additional houses being built this will just impact on the traffic and problems even more. If there is a delivery van or Sainbury’s delivering the shopping now it blocks the road. In order to get to Bluebell Lane you have to come down Station Road which again, because of the car parking on one side of the road this is down to a single track and passing is again a problem. With the additional houses being built on this lane this is doubling the amount of traffic that will be using Station Road and Bluebell Lane. If there isn’t enough parking spaces for these new houses where are the people going to park. The car park at the bottom of the Lane gets full now. Most houses have at least two cars.

    Another problem is the drainage in the Lane. When it rains the water runs down the road and you end up with a puddle at the bottom of the road. The water has nowhere to go and this has been a problem since the houses were built on Bayhams Field.

    In the winter when it snows it is impossible to get up and down the Lane, let alone get out of the village because you are unable to get up Station Road when it is really bad.

    This land has been looked at before for building on and was turned down because this is contaminated land.

    A specific planning application for this site will need to satisfactorily address how Bluebell Lane would be used for access and route for exit/entrance onto Station Road whilst conserving the rural nature of the location.

    Parking locations is something this draft Plan has sought to address over and above normal demands in recognition of the various existing parking issues around the parish.

    Drainage and water run-off handling will need to be addressed in a specific planning application for this site. If land contamination is present this will also need to be rectified as part of the planning proposal.

     

  • Martin Blackwell
    [oppose]
    Fri 11 Jul

    Bluebell lane is a very quite established area which enjoys woodland views in a rural setting. This will be compromised by the building of any houses. Furthermore the village infrastructure can not cope with the building of any further housing in this area. Station Road and the access to and from Top Road and the amount of traffic in general would not be welcome. There are already parking issues at the top of station Road and this would be made worse.

    Without some development of the type outlined in the parish the issues caused by the current demographic pattern will probably just become more acute. This draft Plan sets out to reverse the established trend in order to allow the community to thrive.

    Without a Neighbourhood Plan it is probable there would also be developments but the developments would not be of the type nor in the locations desired. The detailed process that has taken place assessing the various sites put forward has ensured the sites selected will minimise the adverse impacts of the development.

     

  • Tracey Bell
    [oppose]
    Fri 11 Jul

    Huge disruption to Bluebell Lane - which is a single track lane and will remain a single track lane - how will it cope with the traffic to the new houses. the development will overcrowd the area and cause traffic issues not only on bluebell lane but Station Road and the junction of Top Road. Access to this site is far worse than any of the other sites under consideration and has the most to lose. This area should be removed form consideration. the area to be developed also deals with drainage building on this land would cause flooding in bad weather as the water will no longer have the drainage ditches we have put in place. The electricity pylon runs through the site - will this be moved? the village suffers more than most from power cuts - how will the extra requirement affect this? 13a or 13b would be better sites if building in sharpthorne is a must. but village amenities as low for the residents we already have.

    The exact details of how a development would be arranged and accessed will be assessed as part of a formal planning application in due course.

    Issues of access were fully explored in the site assessment process overseen by the Task Force group and is documented in full on the Hub and in the Sustainability Appraisal published alongside this draft Plan.

    The land drainage issue will also need to be satisfactorily handled but this should form part of the policy definition too. The need to relocate electricity pylon(s) would again be part of a planning application approval process.

    Part of the case for the additional homes is in fact to bolster the viability of local services.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [oppose]
    Wed 9 Jul

    As residents of Bluebell Lane, we feel that this proposal would have a dramatic affect on the bridal path which it fronts onto and is already too narrow for vehicles to pass along side by side. The Lane is in fact a bridal path and is in constant use by horse riders, ramblers and dog walkers. To introduce a muse of houses opposite the current row of cottages would only turn this beautiful lane into a supermarket car park! In an attempt to see a sensible option for this proposed development could I suggest a cul-de-sac style road be introduced where properties back onto Bluebell lane with access being via an off shoot of the junction at the bottom of the lane adjacent to the bridal path leading towards Gravetye Manor. Consideration needs to be made towards the detrimental affect that the building traffic would have on Station Road and Bluebell Lane accepting deliveries, bin men, emergency services and visitors to the Bluebell Railway Line.

    A specific planning application for this site will need to satisfactorily address how Bluebell Lane would be used for access and route for exit/entrance onto Station Road whilst conserving the rural nature of the location.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [no opinion]
    Wed 9 Jul

    no opinion - no comment supplied.

     

  • Southern Water - Clare Gibbons
    [no opinion]
    Tue 8 Jul

    We take this opportunity to point out that Southern Water’s infrastructure crosses the proposed housing site, known as ‘Land as Bluebell Woods’. Therefore, the development should be designed to: (i) avoid building over it so that it can continue to function effectively and (ii) provide access for maintenance purposes.

    These points will be covered in a revised version of the Plan.

     

  • Katrina Staplehurst
    [oppose]
    Sun 6 Jul

    This is probably the most ill-chosen piece of land available in the parish, for the following reasons:

    (1) It is outside Sharpthorne village boundary (past planning applications have been rejected on this point). It is my understanding that separation between the two villages (apart from on the Top Road) was to be maintained.

    (2) Access is an issue. The approach route can only be via Station Road and then Bluebell Lane. Station Road is already very busy with HGVs accessing and exiting Ibstock Brickworks and the road has a nasty bend just before Marlpit Road. I am surprised that there hasn’t been a serious accident there yet. Following the road down, the lower part of Station Road becomes a single track road owing to the cars parked outside the houses. This leads down towards Bluebell Lane. The area opposite Bluebell Lane is used as a car park by walkers, dog walkers, train spotters and Bluebell Railway volunteers amongst others. The Bluebell Railway also uses the area when doing track maintenance. Bluebell Lane is accessed by a sharp left hand bend – not viable for HGVs. Bluebell Lane itself is a single track public bridleway, with only one vehicular exit. It sufferers badly from water run-off from the Bayhams Field development as insufficient drainage was incorporated into the design plans. There is no room for access to the new development along its length as it currently stands.

    As a final point to the accessibility of this site, the junction of Station Road and Top Road is already busy without adding another potential 30 cars to the mix. It is quite common for a log jam to occur with vehicles trying to move in and out of the junction whilst avoiding parked cars.

    The development would also drive away all the wildlife that currently uses the field and surrounding wooded area. This includes deer, foxes, badgers, birds of prey, birds, bats and numerous insects, lizards (including slow-worms) and snakes.

    I can see no benefit to having a development here.

    All the sites included in this Plan are outside but in all cases adjoining the defined built-up area boundary. No more suitable sites were proposed within the built-up areas. Impacts on the "local gap" were considered as part of the site assessments.

    Detailed access design will need to be part of any specific planning application put forward for this site which will need to satisfy WSCC Highways on safety considerations.

    Drainage and water run-off and impact on wildlife will also need to be handled in such an application.

    Consideration of the junction of Station Road onto Top Road was part of the reason that the maximum of 15 dwellings was set rather than the 30 proposed by the landowner.

     

  • christine jones
    [oppose]
    Tue 1 Jul

    we oppose this policy as the entrance onto station road is very bad and the traffic going up and down station road is so busy at times also the junction at the top which leads onto top road is so dangerous at times with the large trucks going to and from the brickyard also why is there no sites in west hoathly or highbook only sharpthorne

    The independently supported in depth process to assess all the sites that were proposed included the traffic impacts of all of the proposed sites. Part of the reason for a maximum of 15 dwellings on this site rather than the 30 proposed was related to additional traffic. Observations of the morning rush hour times at the junction of Station Rd with Top Rd have recently been undertaken. Volumes of traffic exiting Station Rd were as could be expected for 200+ dwellings and queuing times were not excessive. 15 dwellings would add approximately 5 additional exiting vehicles per peak hour. WSCC Highways will need to be satisfied that any proposed development's highways requirements are safely achieved.

    4 sites were assessed in West Hoathly but they had greater impact and/or other constraints which made them less suitable for inclusion.

    No sites were put forward for consideration in Highbrook. Unlike West Hoathly and Sharpthorne there is no defined built-up area boundary for Highbrook.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

  • Margaret Worthington
    [oppose]
    Thu 26 Jun

    Station Road already has traffic problems at top end. How would this site be accessed especially during construction? Access to woods at bottom is used by many walkers. Would this development cause a risk to them with increased traffic.

    Safe arrangements for the construction phase will be part of the planning approval process and would not be allowed to obstruct access into Gravetye Woods

     

  • Peter Hartley
    [oppose]
    Thu 26 Jun

    Mildly oppose. Whilst a few scattered houses might be appropriate here 15 is too many. The remainder of the site should be clearly delineated to prevent subsequent encroachment.

    The 15 needs to be compared to the 19 houses on the currently developed side of the lane several of which are larger detached homes.

    The landowner had originally suggested 30 dwellings on this site. The only area allocated in this Plan is specifically the lane-side strip.

     

  • Caroline Rogers
    [oppose]
    Tue 24 Jun

    The boundary of our village, Sharpthorne, is strongly marked by Bluebell Lane and should remain so. No building to the opposite side of the lane, north, from the current housing must be given. This would be detrimental to a countryside woodland area. It could even in future years allow extended woodland erosion. A walk along station road opens out to the Bluebell Woods and Gravetye at the edge of Bluebell Lane (Rats Alley). This open countryside and woodland area should be preserved and protected for the future so all, including children and walkers, can enjoy the tranquility. A housing development here would be completely out of place. I strongly oppose this plan.

    In fact within living memory there have been commercial works on this site. The much more established woodlands furthest from Bluebell Lane on this area of land form an effective "planning barrier" . Compared to the area of Gravetye Woods and its amenity value, the strip identified alongside Bluebell Lane is a rather scrubby area.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [no opinion]
    Tue 17 Jun

    Is 10 too many?

    Minimum of 10 represents a very low density for the size of the site. Fewer than 10 would likely mean that no Affordable homes would be included.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [oppose]
    Mon 16 Jun

    This is a village. No bigger please.

    In developing this plan there has been widespread support for some expansion of the number of homes in the parish - especially Affordable Homes. This is in order to help sustain key facilities and services which are valued by residents and to provide lower cost new homes for downsizing older residents and adult offspring of current residents.

     

  • Muriel Bishop
    [oppose]
    Sat 14 Jun

    Why does Sharpthorne have to bear the brunt of these plans? But thank you all for all your hard work - I realise that doing something is good for all of us.

    The conclusion on the best sites to be allocated in this Plan was reached after extensive work with an independent consultant. The most suitable and sustainable sites all happened to be located adjacent to the Sharpthorne built up area.

    Thank you for your other comments.

     

  • Robert Bedwell
    [oppose]
    Thu 12 Jun

    Access onto Top Road from new homes would just add to already overcrowded roads at peak times. Once again, this would be a concern from the safety perspective, as well as adding to the already significant inconvenience at peak times.

    Access onto Top Road was considered as part of this allocation and the original proposal was for 30 new dwellings. Hence the allocation with a maximum of 15 homes on this site.

     

  • shaune watkins
    [oppose]
    Fri 30 May

    I strongly oppose this development for several reasons which I have already stated in previous consultations, so obviously you are not listening to the residents of station road. The most worrying reason is that the amount of traffic passing our house will double with the building of these houses and thus destroying the relative peace of living in this road, the traffic along this road has already doubled since we moved here 8 years ago. We now have numerous lorries driving up and down and having to mount the verges because of the narrowness of the road. Secondly how could you possibly think that building houses on any woodland would be acceptable? This is a area of Sharpthorne that is used by many residents as a recreational area of peace and quiet and national beauty to walk through the woodland, that would be completely lost if houses were to be built and a massive increase in population that would have a detrimental affect on existing residents. If building were to go ahead at the end of the road that I live in I would definitely think hard about moving out of Sharpthorne, as I have always avoided living in town like areas which I feel station road would feel like. In short I feel that the disruption that building here would be very unfair on the people that live close to this site.

    All of these issues and the associated benefits of new homes were considered in the development of this Plan and in detail in the Sustainability Appraisal which can be found on the Hoathly Hub. However comments noted.

    Here is the SUSTAINABILITY APPRAISAL.

     

WHP14 : Dwelling Extensions

Extensions to existing dwellings will be permitted where the design, appearance and scale remains visually and functionally subservient to the host dwelling.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: Obviously any extensions will conflict with WHP12.

    WHP12 is about new developments whereas this policy covers all existing housing stock.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP15 : Conservation Areas

Infill development and the conversions of buildings which contribute positively to the area's character will be permitted provided they help meet local housing needs. Within the Conservation Areas of West Hoathly and Highbrook, policy DP33 of the Mid Sussex District Plan will apply and all development should be sympathetic to the specific characteristics identified in the relevant Conservation Area Appraisal documents.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: Action is needed to prevent the West Hoathly conservation area becoming a conservation car park particularly the pedestrian footways.

    The parking policies in this plan attempt to help with this. Day to day parking issues need to be handled in other ways outside this Plan's scope.

     

  • Caroline Rogers
    [support]
    Tue 24 Jun

    West Hoathly and Highbrook have these for obvious reasons, however Sharpthorne too should be conserved or our beautiful village will never survive as a proper village. How about a Conservation Area for Bluebell Woods leading onto Gravetye? This peaceful space seem to be in urgent need of safeguarding!

    A formal Conservation Area has not been discussed for any part of Sharpthorne and this Neighbourhood Plan represents the best opportunity for residents to collectively agree how the parish should develop.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    How will these problems be overcome?

    Not sure which problems this refers to?

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [oppose]
    Mon 16 Jun

    No infill in Conservation Area

    Development within Conservation Areas is already tightly controlled and requiring no infill would not be in conformance with District and National policies.

     

WHP16 : Alternative Green Space

Funds provided by development to support Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) will be used to establish and improve a local SANG location (or locations) within the parish that can be used without car journeys by the majority of parish households.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Persimmon Homes - Nicola Hume
    [no opinion]
    Mon 14 Jul

    We recognise that new residential development within West Hoathly will be required to mitigate its impact on nearby Ashdown Forest Special Protection Area (SPA).The council’s current strategy is for developers to make contributions towards Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS). The policy as currently worded confirms that funds will be used to establish and improve a local SANG location within the Parish. Our concern is that this wording is overly restrictive, as the Council currently seek to pool contributions towards SANG provision within the associated catchment which may fall outside the parish.

    This draft policy puts no additional burden on new developments but seeks to address the Ashdown Forest mitigation in a way that avoids additional car journeys. Further discussions on this topic will take place with MSDC.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • MSDC - Mark Bristow
    [no opinion]
    Tue 8 Jul

    Mid Sussex District Council are particularly keen to explore in more detail with the Parish Council, policy WHP16 in relation to SANGs as there are specific requirements for such designations.

    Further discussions to take place with MSDC.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: Again perhaps a new green spaces levy should be charged to those who exploit the village for their own advantsge as mentioned under WHP9B.

    If it involves planning approval and additional living / commercial floor space it would but otherwise unlikely.

     

  • Mrs K Coutin
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP17 : Hoathly Hill

Infill development at Hoathly Hill (see Map C) will only be permitted where the use, scale, design and location will enhance and not result in material harm to the character of the settlement, loss of open space within the settlement or loss of views from Hoathly Hill or materially harm views towards Hoathly Hill from outside viewpoints, especially from the village of West Hoathly.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Housing here should follow the same policies as in other areas of the Parish.

    A specific policy re Hoathly Hill does not mean that the other draft Plan policies where relevant don't apply within the Hoathly Hill area but this could be made clearer in the Plan.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    Also development at Hoathly Hill should also be to meet local housing needs.

    This is something that should be considered within this policy as per the other Infill policy WHP11.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Stephen Brand
    [oppose]
    Mon 16 Jun

    Thin edge of the wedge

    This policy is very similar to that which has been in place as part of the 2004 Mid Sussex District Plan so no reason to believe any significant changes than have resulted in that era.

     

WHP18 : Existing Employment Sites

There will be a general presumption against the loss of employment sites. Redevelopment of an existing employment site for mixed uses, including housing, with some employment opportunities retained on site will be permitted only where it can be demonstrated that the use of the site solely for employment is no longer viable.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Desirable that there should be some places of work in the parish

    Noted

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [no opinion]
    Wed 9 Jul

    no opinion - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: If the site genuinely provides local employment over a long period fine. If it simply provides employment for imported labour eg Philpots Quarry then perhaps building houses on a brown field site rather than a green field site would be preferable. Establishing "viability of a site for employment" would be very difficult in practice.

    Noted

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

WHP19 : Home Working

Applications for extensions or part change of use of dwellings to enable flexible or home working within the development boundary will be permitted, subject to there being appropriate parking and neighbouring residents are not affected.

  • John Trueman
    [support]
    Tue 15 Jul

    Home working is useful for those who can do it. Journey time to and from a place of work can be unproductive.

    Noted

     

  • Claire Goodson
    [no opinion]
    Wed 9 Jul

    no opinion - no comment supplied.

     

  • Neil Greatorex
    [support]
    Wed 9 Jul

    Fully support home-working initiatives, but without FTTC/fibre internet and/or a faster 4G mobile/data network, not sure how many would want to work from home - unless their activity is not dependant on computers of course!

    FTTC is expected to be available to the majority of homes in the parish by early 2016 under the WSCC / BT roll-out plan.

     

  • John & Pauline Ralph
    [support]
    Sat 28 Jun

    Support but: Since an initial intention for a "work" extension can easily develop into a change of use to residential later on a long trm restriction needs to be applied.

    As an extension would normally have the same class of use from a planning point of view, it would not be possible to restrict subsequent changes of purpose of the additional space.

     

  • Mr & Mrs Stratford
    [support]
    Tue 17 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

  • Coxall Family
    [support]
    Mon 16 Jun

    support - no comment supplied.

     

Overall Response Analysis

  • 52%
  • 17%
  • 8%
  • 13%
  • 8%

support

mostly support

mildly oppose

strongly oppose

no opinion

 



It's me again!not joined yet?

,

.

 

Oh no! I've forgotten my password!
Not a problem - fill in your EMAIL ADDRESS then click HERE
and we will email a new one to you!

Hello Hoathly Hub - I would like to join!already joined?

My name is  .

I am a  .

I would like to be known to the Hoathly Hub as
and I would like my password to be
(I'll type it again just to be sure I got it right!) .

So that you can contact me, my email address is
or you can phone me on   .

Please me the weekly email Digest of news
and upcoming events in and around West Hoathly Parish.

Please me (very occasional!) email alerts
(road closures, extreme weather conditions, etc).

echo '';

 

I understand that my name, email address and phone number will not be displayed to non-members
and that my personal details will never knowingly be made available to 3rd parties for any purpose.
However I do realise that (like on most websites), Hoathly Hub cannot absolutely guarantee its confidentiality.