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.