HURSTPIERPOINT SOCIETY
REGISTERED CHARITY NO.263520
www.hurstpierpointsociety.org.uk
5 St George’s Place, Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex. BN6 9QT
Tel: 01273 832366 email:
Mr S King
Mid Sussex District Council,
Oaklands Road,
Haywards Heath,
West Sussex,
RH16 1SS
15 January 2013
Dear Mr King
Application No.12/03972/FUL
Detailed planning application for residential development of 93 dwellings, access roads, car parking facilities, footways, footpaths and associated infrastructure, plus change of use of hectares of land to informal open space with landscape planting and other works on land at College Lane Hurstpierpoint.
Land Parcel to the North of 31 College Lane Hurstpierpoint West Sussex
Our Society has approximately 1,000 members in this village and one of the objectives of the Society is “for the public benefit to protect and conserve the natural and built environment of Hurstpierpoint and the surrounding area”. Therefore, we very much hope that this objection will be given substantial consideration.
We are concerned that there are currently two major applications for the village of Hurstpierpoint (this and 12/04141/OUT for land at Little Park and Highfield Drive) for a total of 250 houses. Whist we reluctantly accept that the village will need to take more housing, the current numbers in the draft Parish Plan are for 160 - 200 over the next 20 years. We already have permission for 38 houses in Chalkers Lane and there are a number of small permissions granted, for example on the old Kave site in Western Road. To contemplate another 250 houses on top of these within the next 5 years (probably) is of great concern in the context of a 20 year plan. We therefore hope that these two sites will be considered together in terms of the impact on the Village and its infrastructure.
The site is currently agricultural land located on the south-eastern edge of the settlement boundary of Hurstpierpoint, outside the built up area boundary. Not only is it a Countryside Area of Development Restraint, it is also a strategic and local gap between Hurstpierpoint and Hassocks (MSDC Local Plan saved policies C1, C2 and C3).
Despite this being a full application we note that a number of statutory consultees have raised serious concerns over the documents submitted:
· A tree or arboricultural impact survey is missing;
· The affordable housing was incorrectly allocated throughout the site in the submitted plan;
· The Environment Agency (EA) is concerned about the location of the foul pumping station and the inclusion of the culvert, erosion protection on the swales (ditches). Also, the discharge from the proposed balancing pond and the relocation of the existing pond;
· The Highways Authority have identified missing reports, in particular the impact on nearby junctions;
· Southern Water have concerns over insufficient capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal;
· The Urban Designer objects to this scheme because of the quality of the design and layout, the parking is too dominant and many of the elevations are poorly composed and/or lack authenticity. He feels the proposed development would benefit from being reduced and pulled away from the north and east boundaries so that it does not impose so much upon the view of the countryside from College Lane.
· The EHO is concerned about the air quality at the Stonepound crossroads.
It makes it very difficult to comment on an application when remedial action is required (and sometimes changed reports and plans are submitted). This lack of detail and care is not acceptable in an application for 93 houses in a sensitive area of the countryside!
From our perspective, we are concerned that the design does not take account of its surroundings, especially on its southern edge. From the plans and drawings it gives the impression of being high density, in terms of the closeness and overlooking of houses, and their heights. The design seems to be more urban in character despite the references to “ a ‘farmstead’ principle” in the Planning Statement (PS) and the Design & Access Statement (DAS).
The NPPF makes specific reference to the effect on designated heritage assets (paras 65, 128 – 141) and the importance of their setting. However, the application makes passing reference to the Wickham Farmhouse (which has 2 adjacent properties, the dairy barn and stables). These buildings dating from the 16th/early 17th century are all that remains of the original farmstead, which also included the farmworkers cottages within the Hurst Wickham conservation area. In the PS and DAS it is stated that the development “would not negatively impact upon the setting of Wickham Farmhouse”. Then does not include them in the Landscape and Visual Assessment but states that there are no significant views from the Farmhouse. For anyone with a local knowledge of the area, this is clearly not the case. This would be a loss of amenity for the properties to the North, South, East and West of the site and is clearly contrary to policy B3 of the Mid Sussex Local plan.
We also share the concerns regarding water and sewage. Again, from local knowledge, we are well aware of the problems in this area, particularly how the drainage currently utilises existing ponds and watercourses, but sometimes to overcapacity. Despite the assertion in the Flood Risk Assessment that the development has a low risk of flooding, there are many respondents submitting anecdotal evidence and photos showing areas of flooding in and around the site. The NPPF (section 10) encourages authorities to take full account of climate change and the impact on flood risk of new developments, particularly without increasing flood risk elsewhere.
Finally, the traffic issues in and around Hurstpierpoint are well documented. The Parish is looking at traffic management schemes to cope with the current problems within the Village. An additional 93 homes (potentially more if other applications are approved) will add to these problems. The increase in traffic will cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic and is contrary to T4 in the Mid Sussex Local Plan. Additionally, the TRICS assessment excludes the projected increase in development from the consented application at Chalkers Lane. Nor does it take account of the proposed changes for added pedestrian phases at the Stonepound crossroads. This is likely to increase the queues that currently form to the west towards Wickham Hill. The traffic assessment refers to “the B2116 meets the A273 at the Stonepound Crossroads which is acknowledged to be within a proposed Air Quality Management Area at the time of writing this report.” Yet the assessment also states: “… the overall conclusion is that the development proposals would not significantly impact on the operation of the Stonepound crossroads junction.” We are concerned that if traffic from 93 houses will not significantly impact on the Stonepound crossroad then it must have an impact westwards though the village as “Strategic road access can be gained via the B2116 and the B2118 to the west of the site, which meets the A23 approximately 5.2km from the south of College Lane”. We are also concerned about the visibility for traffic emerging from the site onto a bend and cannot understand why the splay shown is not wider.
In conclusion, this proposal goes against the core principles within para17 of the NPPF. It does not:
· Conform to the emerging neighbourhood plan;
· Enhance and improve where people live their lives;
· Provide homes of high quality design and provide a good standard of amenity for all existing and future occupants;
· Protect the Green belt around Hurstpierpoint and recognize the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside;
· Take account of flood risk;
· Contribute to conserving and enhancing the natural environment;
· Reuse land that has been previously developed; nor
· Conserve heritage assets and acknowledge their contribution to the quality of life.
Therefore, this proposal should be refused.
Yours sincerely
Andrew Hair
Secretary
Affiliated to the Federation of Sussex Amenity Societies (members of The Civic Trust); The South Downs Society;
Action in Rural Sussex; The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England; Sussex Wildlife Trust; Open Spaces Society