Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_styles() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/villag05/public_html/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 600

Warning: Parameter 1 to wp_default_scripts() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/villag05/public_html/wp-includes/plugin.php on line 600
East Hoathly Village Concerns Blog » 2016 » September

East Hoathly Village Concerns Blog

lots of acronyms – please see categories: Abbreviations

Archive for September, 2016


Friday, September 9th, 2016

WDC – Wealden District Council

WLP – Wealden Local Plan

CPRE – Campaign for the Protection of Rural England


(The SWOT Edict : The SWOT Team will review the new Wealden Local Plan (to 2037) and will seek information to corroborate or challenge the findings , so as to ensure sustainable housing development is upheld across Wealden without undue overdevelopment)

5YLS – Five Year Land Supply

NPPF – National Planning Policy Framework

OAHN – Objectively Assessed Housing Need

SA – Sustainability Assessment

CIL – Community Infrastructure Levy

SHMA – Strategic Housing Market Assessment

Objections to the Hesmond and Bradford plans

Friday, September 9th, 2016

The following objections to the Hesmond and Bradford plans are guided by some of the reasons given by Sajid Javid in his blocking of the Buckingamshire houses over landscape impact:

1) Both plans fail to comply with the core planning principles of the National Planning Policy Framework to recognise the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside, to conserve and enhance the natural environment and to reuse land that has previously been developed. Both developments are of a scale and nature on a Greenfield site in the open countryside, which would result in the loss of best and most versatile agricultural and stud land. The developments would cause harm by the significant adverse visual and landscape character impact on the area of the development sites and their surrounding valued landscape.

2) From both plans, it is not considered that the developments could take place without having a severe impact on the existing highway network and it has not been proven to promote sustainable transport or conform with the strategic objectives to reduce congestion, inconvenience and hazards on the local highway network and therefore, would fail to accord with the advice contained in the National Planning Policy Framework.

3) The proposed developments do not seek to provide any dedicated employment land and as such, makes little contribution to the job needs of its population or the wider area exacerbating problems of out-commuting. The absence of any employment land in the mix of uses would not help to secure economic growth and weighs against the sustainability credentials of the scheme and would fail to accord with the advice contained in the National Planning Policy.

4) Further observation of both plans questions the provision of 35% affordable housing on site, acceptable levels of education provision, leisure and equipped play provision, community facilities, environmental standards and necessary infrastructure either through on or off site provision or financial contribution.

See a list of general objections.

The two plans posted around the village are not alternatives.

Monday, September 5th, 2016

Housing development proposals in East Hoathly are being led by Developers rather than being considered within the context of a strategic plan that carefully evaluates local needs and the capacity of the infrastructure.

Unlike neighbouring authorities, WDC is allowing this to happen. WDC will collect the significant Government ’New Homes Bonuses’ (Double Council Tax for 6 years on every house built).

The Hesmonds and Bradford plans would bring about a fundamental change to the character of the landscape and would threaten the identity of the village of East Hoathly. They set a dangerous precedent and encourage further applications for large, developments in our village and rural areas beyond; effectively a Developers’ ‘free for all’ with no strategic framework.

No to development in any part of the Green Belt or AONB

Sunday, September 4th, 2016

A quote from http://www.bucksfreepress.co.uk/…/14650734.This_week_s_let…/

No to development in any part of the Green Belt or AONB by the WDC planning policy. The threat: “If the plan does not show how we will meet housing need, the inspector could fail it – then it’s open season for speculative developers to fill a planning vacuum.” contained above has the whiff of the post-Brexit emergency budget – and we all know what happened to that! On 18th July in a speech to the House of Commons Sajid Javid stated: “The Green Belt is absolutely sacrosanct… Unless there are exceptional circumstances, we shouldn’t be carrying out any development there”. So, if WDC reject Green Belt and AONB development, then central government will not overturn their decision. Come on WDC and stand up for your community.

Nus Ghani,MP, questioned on radio Uckfield

Friday, September 2nd, 2016

The Question:


Wealden District Council has no 5 year land supply plan and no finalised Local Plan (unlike neighbouring authorities). Until these plans are submitted to Government, Developers have free rein to grab land in Wealden villages for house building. How did WDC get into this mess!

Our beautiful Wealden villages are being destroyed for commercial exploitation!
Has Nus Ghani made representation yet to Sajid Javid to limit the ransacking of our countryside?
The email was used in the interview with Nus Ghani (was broadcast at about 10.40am on Fri 2nd Sept)). She didn’t answer the questions but the interviewer did put all the points to her over a period of about 7 minutes: she just talked about village schools being under used and local businesses finding it hard to find staff; she made no comment about WDC.
She did concede that she had not discussed Wealden planning issues with the Secretary of State for Communities (Sajid Javid). She said that a group of MPs in the South were meeting now to discuss infrastructure problems.