East Hoathly Village Concerns Blog

lots of acronyms – please see categories: Abbreviations

Archive for the ‘Objections’ Category

Hesmonds Planning Application – Update

Tuesday, December 12th, 2017

Links to the amendments are at the end of this posting.

We have now studied the documents.  An amendment was submitted on December 1st 2017 regarding the two entrances on London Rd .  The rest of the Application for 205 houses and Ailies Lane remains exactly the same.

The First Amendment to the access arrangements was submitted in Feb 2017 and showed a roundabout access to the main site entrance and the removal of the hedgerow and trees shown in red in the first attachment.  The Second Amendment shows a right turn box and even more hedgerow removal, shown in red in the second attachment

Please find the time to object again to this amendment.  It is important to show that East Hoathly is still strongly against this application.  We have until January 5th 2018 to object (despite the letter saying Dec 22nd 2017 ) but we suggest that you get it done before Christmas.

You can object in 3 ways. Whichever way you choose always quote the Planning application Reference WD/2016/2796/MAO and give your name and address.

  1. Object online at: http://www.planning.wealden.gov.uk/plandisp.aspx?recno=136395
  2. E mail: planning@wealden.gov.uk
  3. Write to:

Head of Planning and Environmental Services

Wealden District Council

Vicarage Lane

Hailsham BN27 2AX

Suggested Wording for your Objection – if you have objected before:

My original objection (dated*) to Planning Application WD/2016/2796/MAO still stands.  The amendments submitted on Dec 1st 2017 in no way overcome my original objection. Please do not approve this application.  If you do not know the date just leave this out.

You can if you wish go on to make a more detailed objection regarding the London Rd amendments and some suggestions follow at the end of this email.

Suggested Wording for your Objection – if you have not objected before: If you didn’t make an objection originally then do so now on this amendment.

Environmental

Unnecessary destruction of species rich Verges, Hedges and Trees.  These provide hugely important habitats for a wide range of birds and other animals including Great Crested Newts, which use hedges to transit between sites, and for foraging.

Loss of footpath leading to Weald Way entrance.  The existing narrow footpath alongside Long Pond would be removed.

Destruction of Green Approach to Village.  The curving road with wide green verges, ancient hedgerows and trees with fields beyond provides the setting for the Village Conservation area and Listed Buildings and community nestled within.  The proposal would urbanise this Green Approach and utterly ruin this important feature of our landscape.

Ashdown Forest.  There are no jobs or School places in the Village so most traffic from the new homes would go onto the Bypass adding to congestion and much of it would go through the Ashdown Forest exacerbating the already dangerous pollution levels.

Traffic and Road Safety

Safety Audit.  The proposal for a “Right Turn Pocket” has been identified as likely to lead to rear end shunt style collisions. The times the Safety Audit was carried out were inadequate and did not give realistic traffic flows.

Access Width.  The width of the access roads does not appear to show wide enough access for the largest vehicles which would overhang kerbs and could not pass each other without mounting the pavements or enter oncoming traffic lanes.

East Sussex County Council Highways Objection.  ESCC Highways objected to this application in Feb 2017.  This amendment fails to address their concerns for the London Road access.

Ailies Lane and Waldron Road

The Ailies Lane element and Waldron Road entrance has again been ignored and no traffic analysis or safety audit has been presented.

first-amendment-1

second-amendment-2

london-road-amended-3

 

 

Protect ancient woodlands and hedgerows against developers.

Wednesday, September 13th, 2017

Dr Tony Whitbread, CEO of Sussex Wildlife Trust takes us on a tour of an ancient woodland next to one of the many oil drilling sites springing up across the Weald. He shows us what’s under threat and explains why the Sussex Wildlife Trust is opposing these developments.

Community Habitat Mapping (Thanks to Nick Daines)

Thursday, May 18th, 2017

As Wealden do not appear to challenge developers when they assert that development will increase biodiversity by providing private gardens, something like this may be useful to better understand the biodiversity we currently have:

https://www.facebook.com/events/640152019517000/

Wealden’s golden goose.

Monday, May 8th, 2017

Countryside is our biggest asset

Latest on the WDC Local Plan (27th April 2017 special thanks to Nick Daines)

Monday, May 1st, 2017
Responding to a question from SVC Group Secretary (www.stopvinescorner.co.uk): ……has the WDC Local Plan ‘progress’ gone a bit ‘quiet’?
Nick Daines replies:
“””
You are right, publically at least, progress on the local plan has gone quiet. No evidence studies/documents are available even though the draft plan makes many references to them.

The draft plan was first available in the agenda papers published on 3 March for the Local Plan Subcommittee and Joint Planning Committee’s 13 March meetings. The proposal was for 14,102 houses to be built between 2013 – 2028. Wealden acknowledged that NOx damage to Ashdown Forest may be an issue and was modelling the effect from 11,456 houses as an alternative. The recommendation before both committees was that the portfolio holder recommends the draft plan to Full Council for consultation and submission.

On 13 March, Wealden told both committees that the 14,101 houses would cause unacceptable damage to the Forest and they would be proceeding with the 11,456 houses. This would mean changing policies in the draft plan and the housing allocations. However, the recommendation was unchanged and both committees duly accepted it!

The agenda papers for the 22 March Full Council meeting recommended that the draft plan be approved for publication for consultation and submission to the Secretary of State.  However, at the meeting Wealden accepted that the evidence base was not complete (notably the Sustainability Appraisal, which is a statutory requirement) and that further work was needed on the draft plan. The recommendation was changed to noting progress on the plan and requesting that the plan be brought back to council at the earliest opportunity. The council accepted this revised recommendation.

Clearly, Wealden is in considerable disarray – on 3 March expecting councillors to prove a plan for 14,101 houses, but by 22 March accepting that some very fundamental areas of the 3 March plan would have to change.

It is now apparent that any further development in Wealden will cause damage to Ashdown Forest and that no further development can proceed until the compensatory measures have been agreed and delivered.

Wealden is confidant that the 5YLS is now not an issue – they accept that they do not have a 5YLS, but due to the Ashdown Forest issue, have evidence (unpublished) that any development will cause damage so is therefore unsustainable. I wonder how long developers will accept this position before one submits an application and then tests the rejection though an appeal?

The next draft of the plan will have to contain a mitigation strategy approved by Natural England for Ashdown Forest. I anticipate that Wealden will be discussing with landowners whether they would be willing to make their land available to provide mitigation. This may take some time as the landowners will want a fee for loss of use which will have to be paid by developers. Thus, the next draft may take some time to surface. Alternatively, if Natural England cave in and decide that the NOx damage can be accepted, then the next draft could follow shortly thereafter…..

“””

Councillors lament lack of localism in planning system (thank you David Connoley)

Tuesday, January 24th, 2017

lament

Councillors have lamented the lack of local democracy in house planning, with a majority warning that the system leans too far in the favour of housing developers at the cost of local communities, a survey has revealed.

A survey of over 1,200 ward councillors in England carried out by the Local Government Information Unit (LGiU), and commissioned by the conservation charity the National Trust, has revealed that councillors believe the current planning system does not consider the wishes of councils and communities as much as it should.

Councillors have warned against the current system with over half of those surveyed advising that planning departments are not adequately resourced and that sites are being improved for new housing despite not being in line with the local plan, including sites on green belt land.

“The planning system is one of the fundamental pillars of local democracy, allowing communities to help shape the physical structure of the places they live,” said Jonathan Carr-West, chief executive of the LGiU.

“Councillors are the most important link between communities and that system. Our survey with the National Trust shows that many councillors feel that this democratic tool is at risk of being undermined.”

The survey revealed ongoing councillor reservations about the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF), with only 18% of councillors feeling that design has improved since it was introduced. The NPPF was criticised by the CLG Select Committee as long ago as 2014 for failing to protect against unsustainable development and was earmarked for a comprehensive overview in April last year.

Particularly, councillors have raised concerns about the loosening of the planning system permitted by the NPPF such as the introduction of permitted development rights for home extensions, office to residential use conversions and other changes of use. Approximately 60% of councillors believe that due to the framework, green belt land is at risk of being allocated for housing by their councils within the next five years.

The results of the survey come as the government prepares to announce its housing white paper in response to the growing problems in ensuring a sufficient number of homes nationwide, particularly affordable homes.

Ingrid Samuel, historic environment director at the National Trust, declared it “worrying” that councillors feel that the NPPF hasn’t delivered the localism that was promised despite almost five years having passed since its introduction.

“If ministers are serious about local plans being at the heart of the planning system, then they should invest in council planning teams and use the Housing White Paper to give them the tools to deliver good quality housing in the right places,” Samuel said.

The LGiU and the National Trust expressed hopes that the government will use the paper to improve council confidence in the planning system, instead of setting rigid housing numbers which do not consider local factors such as areas of outstanding national beauty.

Their suggestions for steps the government could take included more resources for local planning authorities, stronger government backing for councils setting design standards, and an increased ability for councils to recognise local constraints and focus development appropriately.

Objections to Hesmond Stud planning application WD20162796MAO

Sunday, January 8th, 2017

Link to Suggested Objections (short list).

Link to Village Concerns Steering Committee Objections

Why we have to challenge the WDC Sustainability Assessment for East Hoathly

Sunday, January 8th, 2017

The perverse logic WDC used to target massive development on East Hoathly.

Objections to the WDC SA for – Hesmonds Stud

Thursday, December 22nd, 2016

You remember that WDC Sustainability Assessment for East Hoathly North(1) – Hesmond Stud, that you were asked to comment on? Well your responses have been sorted and the result can be viewed here. Why did we bother? Well you might consider some of the objections are worth raising when you comment on the planning application. In fact such is the collision between the WDC comments and your views, this report might help us with a possible legal challenge to stop this application.

Changes to New Homes Bonus (special thanks to Nick Daines)

Friday, December 16th, 2016

15122016 Changes to New Homes Bonus