Responses from Ansty Residents/ Developers

Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council

Responses to the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Development Plan Consultation (Regulation 14) which ran from 14/7/15 to 8/9/15.

Responses from Ansty Residents/ Developers:

Lynne and Nigel Pink / Page 1
Suzanne and Tony Mace / Page 2
Mr and Mrs Utting. / Page 3
Keith Evans / Page 3
Brian Griffin / Page 4
Paul and Chris Dupee / Pages 7-6
Gerard Conway / Page 7
Turley on behalf of Countryside Developments, promoting Bolney Road site / Pages 7-10
Parker Dann on behalf of Norris Farms, owners of land at Ansty Farm. / Pages 11-15

1. Lynne and Nigel Pink

In regards to the proposed development of land bolney road.

We have lived on this road since 2002 and have noted the increase in traffic, bolney road is used by traffic when joining the Cuckfield by pass and is extremely busy with commercial vehicles of all sizes. The Sainsbury's lorries are a constant but they are only a small part of the heavy load both from the A23 onto the Cuckfield bypass and the Burgess Hill road. The road is in constant use by the emergency services. When we have issues on the A23 the bolney road is used as a run off from the A23 causinggridlock.itis a very well used road and we have problems exiting our drives as many other residents do. It is also dangerous walking along the path as the traffic does not abide by the 30 mile speed limit, which the police will not enforce as it is too dangerous to do so.

As for public transport if any of the Parish council use the buses they will know we have a school bus around 8.30, a bus at 11.38, one at 2.38 and the final one at around 5pm going to Haywards heath. If you catch any of these you have about 15 minutes in town before boarding the one bound for Horsham otherwise the wait is 2 hours or as in the later one no return, there are no buses from Ansty into Burgess Hill.

If you wish to walk to Burgess Hill there is no Footpath either.

I have been informed that the piece of land has already been looked at and is deemed

'Not currently developable' and'unlikely to be delivered'.SeeMid Sussex SHLAA 2015 paper Site reference 629 (AS/09)

Wenote that Ansty would seem to be the target for the biggest development, am I right?

Staplefield has a (one) development, Brook street seems to have none.

Ansty is on the cards for two developments one for 10 houses on the Burgess Hill road and one on Deaks Lane for 17 houses. Some of the residents seem to have been unaware of these planning applications.

We were told that the development of the Ansty Cross would include an underground car park however that did not happen but the owner has only 6 car parking spaces for two houses and 5 flats (one retrospectively)on the planning application it calls for the need for 'associated car parking and landscaping' the car parking is below minimal and the only landscaping is on the fantasized picture adorning the hoarding in front! and what has happened in regards to the two terraced houses next to the garage they have blighted the adjoining,once detached house, making it a terraced also.

We call that over development! what will happen to all the planned development here? Developers always want more.

This is not the place for it.

1. Suzanne and Tony Mace
   We are opposed to the proposal to develop land in Bolney Road (A272), Ansty
   We have lived here since March 1992 and despair of the increase in traffic during that time in spite of an additional road off the A23 to take heavy traffic to Burgess Hill and its environs. Our speed limit, after much agitation, has nominally been reduced to 30 mph from 40 mph, although the majority of traffic using it seems not to take any notice. It is almost impossible to walk safely along the footpath because when the heavy lorries such as the Co-operative's and Sainsbury's pantechnicans drive past its feels as though you are being sucked off your feet. Trying to drive into Haywards Heath or indeed Cuckfield during the rush hours is avoided whenever possible as the A272 is used as a rat run from the A23 for both Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill. The mini roundabout in the centre of Ansty is regarded as a continuous right of way for those drivers coming up from Burgess Hill and anyone coming out of or trying to get into the CMW Garage for car servicing is very lucky not to have to leave their car for bodywork repairs.
   I have never bothered to get a bus pass as the service is very sparse with the school bus at around 8.30 am, the next bus is at 11.38 am and after that 2.38 pm with the final one of the day at 5.00 pm, no good for going to the theatre or cinema. These are all buses into Haywards Heath, well sometimes Burgess Hill is the destination and for that there is nothing.
   Our village currently has around 70 homes, not counting those presently under construction which have yet to sell. There are about 10% of those homes for sale currently and these have mostly been for sale for some time. The proposals under consideration or indeed passed would add around 27 properties (plus those recently constructed), that is assuming that plans submitted would not increase the density on a given site. It does seem that plans are put forward, objections raised, objections overruled and then the plans altered after that decision has been taken., as in the case of the Ansty Cross development as this was supposed to have an underground car park, the projected 6 car parking places allocated at present for 2 houses and 5 flats would seem to be unrealistic given the lack of public transport for travel to work.
   Next to the recently enlarged garage there was a semi-detached pair of houses. Another house has been built attached to the first of this pair which now makes it a terrace of three properties, not very nice for the original semi-detached house which must have suffered a loss of value as it is now "end of terrace". The properties in the terrace can hardly be described as "affordable" accommodation as indeed I suspect will be the case with the Ansty Cross development. We were surprised that the building line was not set back further from the roundabout with this development, having it as a pub on the roundabout was bad enough but living on the roundabout will be very stressful.there is no room for landscaping as was originally intended.
   Please don't swamp our tiny rural villages with developments we don't want, for which there is no planned additional infrastructure, and which may encourage more people to live in our delightful area of outstanding natural beauty, but they will most probably not join in with the limited amenities which already exist and hence will add nothing to the well-being of the community.
   Once our agricultural land is built on it is very rare for it to be returned to its original purpose, and we need to produce all the food we can for ourselves.
   
2. Mr and Mrs Utting.
   My name is Ricky Utting and I live at Oakdene, Bolney Road, Ansty with my wife Sharon and son Nathaniel. I'm writing regarding our concerns about the proposed development of agricultural land in to houses on the field opposite our property. One of our concerns is that we have not received any formal information from any official department about this proposed development. All the information we have obtained about the development has come from Mr & Mrs Griffin who live at Harwood, Bolney Road and who have been kind enough to pass it on to us.
   We have in the past been in touch with Sussex police regarding the speeding along Bolney Road and asked what could be done about it and if there was any chance of the local policing traffic unit to set up a speed check. The answer we got back from Sussex police was that it would not be possible due to the bends on the road not giving them enough distance to get a correct speed on the speed gun and that it would be to dangerous to stop vehicles along Bolney Raod!!!! If it's to dangerous for police to stop vehicles on Bolney Road then why would the council consider granting planing for more houses which in turn would mean more traffic coming onto Bolney Road on these blind spots. Every time we leave our driveway my wife and I have to take our lives in our hands due to the blind bend we live on and the speed that the traffic comes round the bend.
   Please feel free to contact me regarding the above.
   

Keith Evans – response 1
We would like to comment on the proposal of AS6 in Ansty.

We understood, that when developments are granted to Rural Villages, that one of the criteria was for them to fit into the Existing Village,

However this Proposal, We think will actually Dominate the Village of Ansty.

The reason for this is that the proposed Development is at the Highest point in the Village at a height of 79 metres.

The shared drive with my Neighbour in “Leafield”, Has the 75 metre “ Trig line “ passing through it.

This means that the proposed housing will be 4 metres / 12 feet above my Drive entrance, My house is about 1 metre lower than this.

In New developments in Haywards Heath, We have seen the construction of many 3 Story Houses.

These would be inappropriate on this site.

The present tree line to the south of the A272 maybe used as an argument by the developer to ensure screening,

However we have seen this abused in the past, When trees suddenly get taken down without permission.

The development in Folders Lane Burgess Hill is a good example of this.

The other issue is, that the type of housing in the proposed development , Has not been matched to existing Housing

In the proposed Layout.

Our next concern is that entrance to the proposed site has not been considered correctly.

We understand that the Highways Agency has recommended a change to the Parish Councils original preferred entrance spot,

Which made more sense.

The A272 had its speed limit in the village reduced a few years ago, under the auspices of improving road safety.

This really is a myth, the speed of traffic seems not to have been calmed much at all. The Police at the time

said they would be unable to enforce it, which is what has happened.

Also volume of traffic since the opening of the Haywards Heath By pass, seems to have increased dramatically,

Perhaps due to a change to signage? And we think this has not yet been taken into account.

During peak times the Traffic tails well back to the west of the village, so I feel that any new road entrance will compound this problem.

We would appreciate If you could forward our comments on.

Keith Evans – response 2
Further to my comments which I sent to you last week, I would like to add some more comments before the closure date.

I understand that there is a ‘Ransom Strip’ along the Bolney Road which I presume was put into place by the County Council to stop such developments as proposed at site 629.

Another concern is regarding drainage, which would need considerable improvement, if this site is to be recommended.

A further issue is why this site is not included in the Mid Sussex Draft District Plan dated June 2015, but is now being put forward even though Mid Sussex rejected this site as unsuitable by its SHLAA team? I think most residents along the Bolney Road would agree strongly with the overall conclusions in their Professional report.

1. Brian Griffin
   7th September

1. We are surprised and concerned, especially living on the Bolney Road at Ansty, as to why agricultural land on this particular section of the Bolney Road has been given the green light in the above Neighbourhood Plan for not just a housing development, but the main housing development in the whole of the Ansty & Staplefield area. (Apparently, land in Staplefield is not being selected for development as
it is designated an ANOB). See the Mid sussex SHLAA 2015 paper Site Reference 629 (AS\09) Land at Bolney Road for a comprehensive explanation as to why this site is considered to be 'Not currently developable' and 'unlikely to be delivered'.
2. The A272 on this section of the Bolney Road has a 30 mph speed limit. Noticeably, in the last few years the speed and volume of traffic, especially heavy goods vehicles including 5 axle vehicles, has increased markedly. Recently, a neighbour who is fairly new to the area, tried to find out why there was obviously nothing being done about the violation of this 30 mph. He eventually received a reply from the police basically saying that it would be too dangerous to try and enforce this limit in the village. This follows what we were told at a meeting a few years ago.
It would be a good idea if anyone who recommended this site - councillors or otherwise - tried walking along the footpath, exiting our properties by car, or crossing from the Bus Stops on either side of the Bolney Road. It might be then realised how dangerous it would be if vehicles from another 18 houses were to exit on this road.
8th September
Could you please confirm that you received our email re comments on the Neighbourhood Plan yesterday, 7th September 2015...our email was 'playing up'.
Also, We would like to reiterate our request made at the July 25th discussion in Ansty that a mail shot is sent to everyone in the village when the next draft plan is produced. Several people I have met who live on the Bolney Road have no idea what is happening. These particular neighbours are working families with young children, did not received any emails re July , and are 'not happy'!
We do not mind delivering an mail shot in Ansty village ourselves if help is required.

1. Paul and Chris Dupee
   31st July
   I would like to make the following comments:-

As the owner of Leafield in Ansty we are directly opposite the proposed AS6 policy proposal. The land proposed for development is on a level about 2 meters higher than the road and our property. With new houses often 3 stories high nowadays it would mean the new dwellings would look down straight into our house and our neighbours houses and be very intimidating. In fact, the submission by the owners of that land has just that scenario for that part of the site.

We would like to have an additional condition, either included as part of no.89 or within the criteria of AS6 in the plan to mitigate future problems. Suggested wording could be along the following lines....

"Any development in AS6 would need to ensure that the height of any properties close to the A272

is minimised to reduce as far as possible any invasive and intimidatory impact on the existing houses on the opposite side of the road. This could involve use of single storey dwellings or garages nearby the A272.".

We also fully support maintained trees along the boundaries of the site.

We are concerned at the increase in traffic on a currently extremely busy main road, both from the additional traffic from developments to the north of Burgess Hill, and from the existing and proposed developments in Ansty.

We also believe that the absence of a bus to Burgess Hill from Ansty will become increasingly difficult for residents to travel to required facilities. The existing number 271 from Crawley to Brighton goes from Cuckfield to Burgess Hill via Isaacs Lane, along which there are no villages. Diverting route to Burgess Hill via Ansty should be more lucrative and be possible to provide service to/from Warden Park School.

We hope above comments are reasonable and constructive.

5th September

Having attended the Staplefield Village hall consultation on 5th Sept, where issues were discussed with Jon and Brad, we would like to comment as follows:-

The issue is why was the Bolney road site chosen for the NP instead of Challoners, considering the district plan assessment of the 2 plots was "not currently developable" for Bolney Road and "developable in time frame 6yrs to 2031" for Challoners.

Apparently, Challoners was not considered as it had not been submitted before the deadline. (On checking pc website afterwards it would appear that the Challoners plans were listed under an entry of 19th Oct 2012, with the deadline of July 2013 so maybe the pc website is wrong.)

Anyway the chronology of events is not the main issue of today with the NP still in draft form and consultation nearly complete. The main issue is, given the information available today, which is the most suitable site of those deemed develop-able before 2031. The 2015 MSDC assessment clearly thinks Challoners is develop-able, and Bolney Road not.

The reasons being the Challoners site would have/be :-

- easier access onto "B" road, rather than very busy "A" road, and easier to implement the access.