East Hoathly Village Concerns Blog

lots of acronyms – please see categories: Abbreviations

Hesmond Stud (WD/2016/2796/MAO)

02032017 The planning application is now scheduled to go before Wealden Planning Committee South on March 30th. The delay, we are told, is because of the overwhelming amount of work involved in getting the new Local Plan out by 3rd March.

We have prepared two reports to be sent to committee members before the hearing:

  1. Example Appeals to Support Hesmond Objection
  2. Organisation Reports to Support Hesmond Objection

21022017 How to wreak havoc with biodiversity near Ailies Lane (part of the Hesmond Hybrid planning application):

fieldmap

(sketch is thanks to John Orwove)

 

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.

———————————————————————————————————

19122016 WDC response to our request that the online deadline be extended:

“In reality residents have until 24 hours prior to the Committee hearing on such an application so in the case of Hesmonds, as it is very unlikely that the application will be heard at Committee before 2 March 2017, this gives residents some two and half months to respond. 

The confusion regarding dates can be clarified – there is the ‘advert expiry’ date of 13 January 2017 and the ‘neighbour enquiry’ date of 30 December 2016.  The former is the expiry date for the advertisement which has to be placed in the local press for such an application.  The date of 30 December 2016 is the statutory 21 day period for residents and statutory consultees. 

If two dates are involved, it is accepted that the later date becomes the guideline when residents should comment by, ie 13 January 2017.  However, you should refer to my first paragraph which is the most relevant. 

In conclusion there is no actual need to extend the 21-day period.  Anyone responding after these dates will be required to use the general Development Management email address of planning@wealden.gov.uk.”

———————————————————————————————————

The planning application for 205 homes on Hesmond stud land is available for inspection and public comment (WD/2016/2796/MAO). An unexpected inclusion is a new house and stables on Ailles lane. In effect two planning applications are submitted as one. There are many reports to read through*.

With the Christmas-New Year holiday period upon us, it is difficult for many residents (and the Parish Council) to sensibly review these complex applications and provide their comments to WDC by the deadline of 13/01/17. So we have asked WDC for a deadline extension so that residents have adequate time to reflect and comment. W’ell let you know what they say.

 

*One report, from Parker Dann who are agents for the Hesmond development, provides us with a thoroughly misleading view of what is best for the village; section 5 is their lesson in “Let them eat cake”..

From Parker Dann’s *planning statement, it is clear that they would like to see the Developing Local Plan (WDC say this will be released in March 2017) allocate more than 190 new homes to East Hoathly (7.51-7.52, 7.71-7.76) and this planning application is their first step to seeing substantial growth (9.2).

A lot of what is written in this planning statement contains generous distortion to favour the planning application’s success; but beneath the deceit is the pivotal status of the 5YLS. The WDC method of calculation results in no 5YLS and this gives Parker Dann the basis for its application. An alternative calculation used by other local authorities but rejected by WDC (possibly linked to ‘New Homes Bonus’ and CIL payments), would provide WDC with a 5YLS and hence permit a very strong argument to be made to contest this application.

As they over-enthusiastically adopt an obvious bias in their appraisal of the village for development, Parker Dann frequently make the mistake of injecting nonsense into their planning statement; they introduce questionable assertions; and they attempt to hold off contradiction by using selective reference to the NPPF and legal case studies.

Parker Dann overstates the resources in the village (7.70) in order to make the case that this development will help with local job creation and the consequent minimising of contributions to climate change. Many of their statements are nonsense when considered in the perspective of everyday living and the present reality of amenities in the village; please read their planning statement and see what you think.

Link to Objections (evolving as we study the documents).

Link to Village Concerns Steering Committee Objections.