Petition for a Judicial Review

Please support this petition - lets tell the Parish Council what they need to do.

The Parish Council have significant resources in the form of the taxes we have paid over recent years.  This petition asks them to use some of these resources to fight the decision by MSDC to completely ignore the Neighbourhood Plan and grant a consent for development at Friars Oak Fields.

A Judicial Review can overthrow a decision like this on a point of law.  The Officer recommendation was wrong at law, they gave no weight to the Neighbourhood Plan.

51 House Planning Application

Well there is a new planning application from Gleeson in respect of Ham Fields.

Two Planning Inspectors and a Home Secretary have said;

"no diminution of the Local Gap"

this means no building in the Local Gap!

You can have a look at the application and comments so far by following this link

DM/15/4609

click the "Make a Comment" button to leave your response or send an e-mail to 

steven.king@midsussex.gov.uk and
planninginfo@midsussex.gov.uk

making sure to include the reference DM/15/4609 in the subject.

Comments need to be in before Christmas Day.

The Parish Council will be formulating their response at the Planning Meeting on 21 December 2015 at 19:30 in the Parish Rooms.  Please go along to remind Councillors that development at this site is not wanted, desired or needed.

A new idea from Gleeson

Many of you will have received the flyer below from Gleesons during the last few days.  We probably should have expected that they would be back again.  A quick recap on where we are:

Gleeson’s planning application for 97 dwellings on Ham Fields was refused by Mid Sussex District Council, then after Gleeson had lodged an Appeal MSDC withdraw their refusal and offered no evidence at the Appeal.  Several interested parties gave evidence at the Appeal and then in July notice was given that the Appeal was dismissed.  They main finding were:

With regard to the Local Gap

"21. In light of the above, notwithstanding the differences between the previous and present schemes, their effect on the Gap would be sufficiently similar, both in principle and practice, that I reach the same conclusion as the previous Inspector and the Secretary of State. The proposed development would result in a small but nevertheless significant diminution of this part of the Local Gap which would undermine its purpose. In turn, this would harm the setting of the villages of Hurstpierpoint and Hassocks, contrary to Policy C3 of the Local Plan.”

With regard to air quality

"43. For the reasons above, I consider that the evidence in respect of air quality is at best equivocal. It would appear that this is due in part to questions of data reliability which might be beyond the appellant’s control. However, on the basis of all the information before me, I cannot conclude with confidence that the proposed development would not have a negative effect on air quality within the Stonepound Crossroads AQMA. Consequently, it would conflict with Policy CS22 of the Local Plan and with the provisions of paragraphs 109, 120 and 124 of the Framework.”

Planning balance and conclusion

"47. I have found in the appellant’s favour in relation to the traffic impact of the proposed development. I also consider that it would have benefits in terms of the social and economic roles of sustainable development as envisaged by the Framework. In this respect, I give particular weight to the provision of market and affordable housing. 

48. However, notwithstanding the creation of the hedgerow and meadows, and that the scheme would cause no significant harm to the landscape character or visual amenity of the area, I have found that it would undermine the purpose of the Local Gap between Hurstpierpoint and Hassocks and reduce forever the land available to perform its important planning function. Furthermore, I cannot be certain that the development would not be detrimental to air quality, and therefore to human health, within the designated AQMA. Consequently, it would conflict with the environmental role of sustainable development.  

49. Having regard to paragraph 8 of the Framework, which confirms that the social, economic and environmental roles of sustainable development are mutually dependent, I consider that the adverse impacts of the proposal would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits to which I have had regard. Thus, in terms of the decision-making approach set out in paragraph 14 of the Framework, I find that the proposal would not constitute the sustainable development for which there is a presumption in favour. I therefore intend to dismiss the appeal and so the planning obligations provided in the S106 Agreement are a neutral factor in the planning balance. As they could not be determinative of the outcome, I have not considered them further in respect of the relevant tests in law and policy. 50. For the reasons above, I conclude that the appeal should be dismissed."

At an extra-ordinary meeting of the Parish Council Councillors did not allocate this site for housing, they did however to resolve to allocate part of the proposed development site as Local Green Space.

Gleeson have, however, applied for a judicial review of the Appeal decision.  This is scheduled for February next year and if successful will set the application back to the Appeal stage and there will be a new Appeal.

In all likelihood this latest flyer is the forerunner for a new application.  They will undoubtedly be trying for a proof of concept and if successful will then seek to revisit the number.  If you are mindful to reply to the flyer I suggest you quote the above sections of the Appeal decision - no diminution of the Local Gap - no matter how small!

Gleeson 2015 Flyer_0001

Decision Day

The day has arrived and we prevailed, the Appeal was dismissed.  The

full decision is attached: in short reduction of the Local Gap and

development which will lead to the worsening or the potential

worsening of the AQMA can be given significant weight and make this

development unsustainable.

The Midi are running a story next week and there is a photo shoot on

Monday evening at 18:00 I suggest we meet in the field over the stile.

Please do come along with your victory banners.  The Midi would

welcome comments please send yours to nikki.cutler@jpress.co.uk

I would personally like to thank everybody who contributed to this

fight, with special thanks to Cllr Andy Petch, Ian Tovey, Philip Weir,

Bob Brewer and Graham Butcher.

You will still need to rank the site in the preference order at the 10

/ 11 July consultation event so it is still important to keep

supporting not only this effort but others which are important to you.

Appeal Decision

Sign our petition

I am incredibly disappointed and annoyed to say that MSDC will not transfer our earlier petition on to the new application.  I have therefore set up the following petition.  Please sign it and share with all your friends and family.

Petition by iPetitions

There is a new Planning Application!

In a surprising turn of events, Gleeson have submitted a new application.  Although this seems strange but lets not try and second guess the reasoning.

As previously a huge number of documents have been submitted, covering correspondence suggests that, and early inspection confirms, the differences relate to the provision of footways around the site, a french drain and associated balancing ponds.

VERY IMPORTANT

Correspondence from the officer at MSDC indicates that

"Residents will need to write in again to object to the scheme or send a copy of previous comments under the new reference number "

I suggest that you all contact Kirsten King and ask her to copy your earlier objections and record them against this application.  You can contact her on 01444 477590 or e-mail her kirstenk@midsussex.gov.uk .  You could write something like;

"I wrote to you previously with objections against application number 13/03818/OUT , please can you record those same objections against application number DM/15/0266"

If you still have a copy of your earlier objection you can e-mail that to kirstenk@midsussex.gov.uk and to planninginfo@midsussex.gov.uk quoting reference number DM/15/0266 .

YOU ONLY HAVE UNTIL 27 FEBRUARY TO GET YOUR OBJECTION IN.

Regardless of any previous objection you made it would be really great if you sent an additional new objection about the Local Gap and the significant impact of the development on the Local Gap.  You should include the following;

"The Secretary of State made a determination in relation to TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 77 APPLICATION BY THAKENHAM HOMES (SOUTHERN) LIMITED LAND OFF COLLEGE LANE, HURSTPIERPOINT, WEST SUSSEX BN6 9AB APPLICATION REF: 13/01250/FUL.  In his decision letter of 4 September 2014 the Secretary of State said;

“although policy C3 is out of date in so far as it impacts upon the supply of housing, it continues to serve an important planning function in preventing the coalescence of the settlements of Hurstpierpoint and Hassocks and maintaining their separate identities and amenity, with no conflict with the thrust of the Framework. The Secretary of State has also carefully considered the arguments set out by the Inspector at IR13.21-13.23 and agrees with her conclusion that the proposed development would undermine the purposes of the Local Gap and change its character. He agrees that the Gap continues to serve a useful and much valued planning purpose (irrespective of the landscape capacity assessment of the site) and that an increase in built development would result in a small but nevertheless significant diminution of openness.”

The Local Gap in question is defined as being from the rear of the gardens of London Road, Hassocks to the rear of the gardens in College Lane, Hurstpierpoint.  As the Secretary of State has already determined that reducing the Local Gap from the west provides a valid reason for refusal, similarly reducing the gap from the east must have the same consequence.

Local Gaps are of national importance, in the overall conclusion of his decision the SoS said;

“The long established Local Gap is already particularly narrow and vulnerable in the vicinity of the application site, so that the proposal fails to satisfy the environmental dimension of sustainable development as set out in the Framework”. 

"

The point you are wanting to make is that this application would have a SIGNIFICANT negative impact on the Local Gap, it would contribute towards coalescence and be contrary to the decision of the Secretary of State.  It would also be contrary to NPPF 17(5).

In the coming weeks there may be some other issues that need highlighting, I am thinking particularly about traffic particularly as WSCC Highways believe there is no traffic problem here and that further development will not make things worse. 

Decision for refusal removed

On 22 January 2015 the District Planning Committee again considered the reasons for refusal.  Officers were recommending that the reasons be removed because the Local Highways Authority were no longer objecting to the impact of the development on Stonepound and therefore the impact on air quality.

I must admit that it was a rather depressing affair.  None of the Councillors seemed to want to accept the fait accompli which was being delivered.  Cllr Coote went so far as to say of the Highways Authority "that they were not fit for purpose" [on several occasions] and Cllr Trumble complained of "lies, damn lies and statistics".

However at the end of the day it all seemed to boil down to costs;

1. Highways were no longer objecting, 
2. The reasons for refusal required the support of their objection, 
3. Without the support the reasons for refusal would be unreasonable and leave Mid Sussex District Council open to costs.

So the reasons for refusal were dropped.  The Appeal goes ahead on 31 March but MSDC will offer no evidence.  It is up to us to argue against the Appeal.  Members of the public are given the opportunity to address the Appeal so we will need to get ourselves organised for that.  In order to make the best use of the opportunity I strongly suggest we only have a few people speak, each one on a key area.  If you are interested in doing this please can you let me know.

Decision and No Decision

As you know there were two planning committee meetings in the last week.

The Parish Council Planning Committee Meeting was on Tuesday night.  Ian Tovey spoke in the public participation section.  He highlighted the original reasons for refusal of the application that of traffic congestion and pollution which would be made worse by this development.  He went on to remind Councillors that the Secretary of State had upheld the refusal of planning permission for College Lane as the local gap still served a valid planning purpose and could be accorded significant weight.

Your Parish Councillors resolved to continue their refusal and objection to this application and that they would urge Mid Sussex District Council to do likewise.  Councillor Les Campbell agreed to represent the Parish Council at the District Planning Committee which took place on Thursday.  They also resolved to obtain further information about taking a more active role in the Appeal process.  An interim Planning Meeting has been arranged for 10:00 am on Tuesday 25 November 2014 to consider the information available.

The District Planning Committee was a little different.  The pubic were not allowed to make any representation to the meeting, something which many of us consider undemocratic.  In fact our Councillors had to work hard just so that they could speak.  We were told that as they were reconsidering a previous decision there was no requirement to allow the public time to speak.

Nevertheless Councillors Campbell, Hatton and Petch spoke for three minutes each and put forward robust, compelling and persuasive arguments.  They were also joined by our Ward Cllr Peter Martin.

We heard a statement from the Case Officer which was no more than the report she had already publicised.  The Appellants plans for the redesign of Stonepound Crossroads was revealed.  I noticed that in fact the plans were published on the planning portal late on 18 November 2014, one wonders when in fact the Officers received it and why it was not publicised in time for Councillors and the public to examine.

The plan, it seems, is to widen Stonepound in Hurst Road and tinker with the traffic light sequence.  We also learnt that the traffic light software was actually updated on 15 July 2014 and the sequencing "improved".  You might want to drop an e-mail to Councillors to let them know how these improvements have gone.

District Councillors questioned the Case Officer and the Highways Authority representative.  To describe their performance as lack lustre and without substance is not overstating the paucity of their responses.  The Highways Authority representative was asked on several occasions to quantify the improvements the scheme were supposed to provide - he was completely unable to.  The Environmental Health Officer was equally unable to provide anything specific.  Councillors were asked to simply take Officers word for it.

Thankfully Councillors decided that this was not sensible or credible in the face of scrutiny.  They resolved to defer any decision until the next available District Planning Committee meeting, which is 11 December 2014.  Officers were asked to provide data which can be examined to substantiate their assertions.  Interestingly we were told that data would not be available from the Highways Authority for at least three weeks, which will be 11 December.  How can any independent analysis be made if this is the case?  You might like to ask the Case Officer.

Councillors did ask Officers what independent analysis had been made of the claims, the answer was none.  Councillors suggested that MSDC should undertaken their own surveys and conduct their own analysis.

We must conclude that the Appeal will continue.  Please do make sure the Planning Inspector has your comments before 3 December 2014.

Planning Meetings

There are two planning meetings this week which relate to the Appeal made by Gleeson.

Monday 17 November 2014 at 19:30 in the Parish Centre, Adastra Park, Hassocks

This is a meeting in public during which the public are given 15 minutes to address Councillors about matters which appear on the agenda.  The Parish Council will write to Mid Sussex District Council with any recommendations which come from the meeting.

Thursday 20 November 2014 at 14:00 in the Council Chamber, Haywards Heath

This is a meeting in public however the public are NOT being given the opportunity to speak.  You are perfectly within your right to go along and listen to what is discussed and the decisions which are made.

Document previews

Google are no longer supporting file viewing and distribution so you may find that some of the published documents are no longer available.  I am working through a different solution starting with the most recent documents.  All the links should still be working though.

If you would like a document that is not visible send me a message from the Contact us section.

Redevelopment of Hassocks Golf Club

I have received the attached and would encourage you to go along and see what the proposal is.  It might be worth keeping your thoughts to yourself until a more opportune time.

Link

Appeal documents

You can find all the Appeal documents by following this Link, or going to the MSDC Planning Portal, or copy the following address to your browser

http://pa.midsussex.gov.uk/online-applications/

and searching for an appeal with the reference AP/14/0052.

You can make comments to the Planning Inspectorate in a number of ways:

1. Online using the Planning Casework Service: www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs 
2. Via email: teamp2@pins.gsi.gov.uk Quoting Planning Inspectorate Reference: APP/D3830/A/14/2226987, or
3. In writing (3 copies required) to:

Vicky Williams

The Planning Inspectorate

Room 3/10 Wing

Temple Quay House

2 The Square

Bristol BS1 6PN

Your representation must reach the Planning Inspectorate not later than 3rd December 2014.  Any representations submitted after the deadline will not usually be considered and will be returned.  All representations must quote the Planning Inspectorate’s Reference APP/D3830/A/14/2226987

Appeal Notice

Details from the Appeal Notice

If you cannot see the image here please follow this link.

I am researching the follow up actions we can take and will post again shortly.

Hassocks Neighbourhood Plan

Our Parrish Council are working on the consultation process for our Neighbourhood Plan.  Recently there was a questionnaire circulated in the Talkabout which received a fair response and the results will shortly be published.

On the evening of 19 September and all day on 20 September there is a public consultation meeting in the Green Room of Adastra Hall.

You can read all about the Neighbourhood Plan process here.

I cannot stress highly enough that it is OUR plan and we must get involved in order to shape how the village will look in the future.  There will be development, that is unavoidable, by being involved you can have a say on where and how that development is and how our community will be shaped and evolve.

Local Gap Saved

The Secretary of State for Planning has made his decision on the three local applications which were called in.

• 81 houses at College Lane, Hurstpierpoint – REFUSED
• 120 houses and a care home at Sayers Common – REFUSED
• 50 Ac of parkland and woodland, and 157 houses at Little Park and Highfield Drive (as the Neighbourhood Plan) - ACCEPTED

You can read more about these applications here.

This should be good news for us as the College Lane decision specifically discusses the need to protect the Strategic Local Gap.

I am anticipating that Gleeson will appeal the decision to refuse their application so we may need to start campaigning again.

A Date for your Diary

Although it is not much notice the application will be decided by Mid Sussex District Council Planning Committee on 1 May 2014 at 14:00 in the Council Chambers, Oaklands Road, Haywards Heath.

If at all possible please do come along and support us, the District Councillors do respond when the community turn out.

If you would like to speak then please can you contact me directly as I would like to make a co-ordinated statement so that there is as little repetition as possible and we maximise the THREE minutes each person has to speak.

Case Officer's Report on the Planning Application

Read the full report so you know what MSDC Planning Department are saying about the apllication.

If you cannot see the image here please follow this Link.

Department for Communities and Local Government issue Consolidated Guidance

On 10 March 2014 the Rt Hon Nick Boles MP Minster for Planning wrote to Coalition MP's advising that the final version of the consolidated planning guidance had been issued.  

"Planning should not be the exclusive preserve of lawyers, developers or town hall officials. This Government inherited over 7,000 pages of complex, overlapping and repetitive planning practice guidance. This is in addition to planning policy contained with the consolidated National Planning Policy Framework. A streamlined version of the practice guidance can now be found online in one place at: http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk"

He went on to say:

"We have carefully listened to representations from colleagues in recent Parliamentary debates. In particular, to help councils with their Local Plans, we are:"

There are several elements which are of particular relevance to the Gleeson proposal:

"Issuing robust guidance on flood risk, making it crystal clear that councils need to consider the strict tests set out in national policy, and where these are not met, new development on flood risk sites should not be allowed. http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/flood-risk-and-coastal- change/planning-and-flood-risk/#paragraph_001 "

and

"Re-affirming the importance of Green Belt protection and ensuring its robust safeguards are not undermined when assessing unmet housing need.  http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/housing-and-economic- land-availability-assessment/stage-5-final-evidence-base/#paragraph_034 "

"Stressing the importance of bringing brownfield land into use.   http://planningguidance.planningportal.gov.uk/blog/guidance/viability- guidance/viability-and-plan-making/#paragraph_025 "

There are also elements which relate more to the situation MSDC find themselves in with regard to the emerging Local Plan.

National Planning Policy Framework - Reasons for Refusal

In order to refuse the planning application the District Council must have a least one valid, bona fide planning reason.  This application presents Councillors with not jus one reason but many:

The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219 NPPF, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system. 

Policy 6 of the NPPF is also relevant. It states that: 

The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. The policies in paragraphs 18 to 219, taken as a whole, constitute the Government’s view of what sustainable development in England means in practice for the planning system.

The significance of this is that the proposal is therefore unsustainable because the proposal is contrary to the following NPPF policies 

32 (2) the requirement for safe and suitable access to the site for all people 

32 (3) severe congestion 

61 integrating new development into the environment 

75 protecting and enhancing Public Rights of Ways 

109 (4) preventing existing development being put at risk by unacceptable levels of air pollution

124. New development is consistent with the local air quality action plan. 

Furthermore the proposal is contrary to the following key principles in paragraph 17: 

(5) taking account of character of different areas and recognising the intrinsic beauty and character of the countryside 

(7) conserving and enhancing the natural environment, 

Aside from these elements the proposal is contrary to the emerging District and Neighbourhood Plans both of which are at an advanced enough stage to be given considerable weight.

Finally consideration should be given to key policy 14 and the logical conclusion that the proposal should be refused because it is unsustainable and because adverse impacts of the proposal significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits, when assessed against the policies in the framework taken as a whole.

The Rt Hon Nick Herbert Lends His Support

Our MP the Rt Hon Nick Herbery has written to MSDC telling them the application should be rejected.

If you cannot see the image here please follow this link.