HMG reported as getting 'fed up' with local communities opposing new homes = so the planning rules will change?
watch this space. So far so good! According to the WSCT and the Parish Council Planning minutes for August, the Parish Council have 'no objection' to a planning application for less houses (15) which does not appear to have been submitted to HDC - and therefore has not been considered by them.......yet? All a little confusing and I recommend interested parties should follow the Smock Alley website as they absorb the news.
LATEST: I have been informed by the Smock Alley Group that the latest appeal (now for 14 houses) was also been turned down on 2/11/2016 by the Planning Inspectorate.
There is an application for mineral extraction on the area of land south of the White Horse public house in Marehill. Whilst this will not have a significant impact on the village (Nutbourne might notice!), I cannot see how lorry traffic heading for the A24 will NOT pass through the village when Storrington 'closes' to it.
We need to keep our eyes on any plans Storrington has to 're-route' heavy lorries! We already have more than our share of 'rat run' cars.
Where will they route? - A24-Ashington-Adversane? Water Lane-Greenhurst Lane-Monkmead Lane-Pulborough-A29? It is of note that the 'Appraisal' by HDC discusses the effect on 'air quality' in Pulborough but does not appear to address West Chiltington nor the increase in traffic generated in both locations and also appears to only address Washington - Adversane and through traffic.
"The potential impact of implementing a low emission zone, restricting HGVs and providing improved signage in Storrington on the neighbouring village of Pulborough was also assessed. This was based on assumptions of how the traffic flow in Pulborough could be affected by changes in Storrington. The results indicated that there would be no significant impact on air quality in Pulborough"
As far as I can tell there is a rather vague notion of routing 'HGV traffic' on the A29 south of the 'Pulborough Crossroads' (whatever these are??) rather than along the Storrington road, which is going to cope with the A29 traffic but makes no mention I have yet found of the east west traffic avoiding the A27 bottlenecks. High time a by-pass (south of Storrington) was funded and completed!
The Parish Council has formed a group to progress a 'Neighbourhood Plan' for the village.
At the meeting, HDC said that the only 'strategic' housing planning for the District was north of the A264 to the north of Horsham. The prospect of further applications remains until the Planning Strategy is finalised in 2014. The draft Horsham Plan should be published on 16 August with a 12 week window for public comment. It appears that once this plan, and 'Neighbourhood Plans' have been produced and accepted by HMG they have some sort of legal status and are, I understand, immune to over-turning at appeal as happens so often at the moment. This 'Neighbourhood Plan' differs from the previous Design Statements we have had in the village in this respect and accordingly requires assent by a majority of residents, unlike the previous ones which were decided by a few with limited public involvement. The Parish council are preparing another 'Housing needs' survey for all and will require volunteers to help with the preparation of the 'Neighbourhood Plan' which, incidentally, is expected to cost around £20,000. After an unspecified grant from HDC this is to be recovered from the village precept.
In the meantime you can read some background at this page. As I understand it, E&OE excepted, although excluded from the 'new' HDC plan, The Adversane/North Heath development (between Gay Street, the B2133 (Adversane Lane) and Broadford Bridge Road) for 4000 houses still remains 'on the books' in as much as it can be taken to appeal if turned down before the District plan is accepted. (PS I could well have got that bit wrong!). There remain the 4 sites in the village where in-fill housing has been approved.
Two caveats I would place here: Firstly, although DC has pratted on about 'localism', there is in effect very little 'localism' around, and it remains to be seen how 'localism' will, in reality, govern future planning requirements set by HMG. Secondly, the whole structure of Strategic Plans and Neighbourhood Plans will only come into effect around Spring 2015. When was that election, again..............? In all of this one should remember the old adage "How do you know a politician is lying": Answer at page bottom.
There are several papers available for download now on the HDC site covering the planning review. Remember these will rapidly become out-of-date. The page is here
An overall view of West Chiltington and Thakeham is downloadable here. You will note that SA14 and SA66 are still shown and look at the size of the vast metropolis at SA294! (See Adversane etc below)
We are pleased to inform you that a large section, approximately 2/3rds, of the ‘developable area’ north of Finches Lane (SA 014) has now been purchased by a local resident. This resident has bought the land in order to prevent development of this section of the plot. (i.e. the woodland and some of the adjacent grassland)
The area of the original plot that has not been sold is adjacent to Mill Road. However, this still has a large number of Tree Preservation Orders on fairly mature trees in an 8 metre wide boundary and one individual TPO, the silver birch, in the middle of the proposed entrance on Mill Road.
There is still a concern about this remaining area of land although it is with thanks to the new owner of the wood that the threat of any larger scale development has now been removed.
This development (actually known to the village following the public meeting as the 'West Chiltington' development) was DROPPED by HDC but see above. Well done to all who took the time to attend the meeting and to respond in significant numbers, which left the HDC representatives in NO DOUBT about how the village felt. My thanks to the PC for passing this important result on to me quickly.
Here is the text I received
IN AUTUMN last year, Horsham District Council invited comments on the Core Strategy Review Consultation document from people who had an interest in the District’s future. It set out some of the key issues in planning the future of the District and put forward, for consultation, nine potential options for how the development requirements could be met.
Around 2400 comments were received on the issues raised in the document from a mixture of individuals and organisations. Over 1,500 of these related to the potential strategic development site options.
The Council has now reviewed and considered carefully all the comments received, as well as preparing further technical work to assist and inform the preparation of the proposed Preferred Strategy document, to be published in the summer, for further consultation.
As part of this process of consultation and technical work, it has been decided that some of the development site options should be excluded from further investigations because their locations meant it would be harder to create cohesive communities with sufficient services to meet the needs of future residents.
Instead, attention will be focussed on a ‘short list’ of the site options to ascertain from the further work whether they are appropriate and deliverable for inclusion in the preferred strategy. Of the nine original site options, the Council will not now proceed with further work on sites Faygate, Chesworth Farm (South Horsham), Adversane/North Heath and Pulborough as potential strategic development locations in the period to 2026. It will now focus its attention on sites West of Ifield, North Horsham, West of Southwater, and East of Billingshurst, with parallel feasibility work taking place on a possible new market town in the Gatwick Sub-Region, jointly with neighbouring authorities.
Cllr David Jenkins, Cabinet Member for Strategic Planning at Horsham District Council, said:
“We indicated our commitment to a thorough public debate on the issues and options available to us at the early stages in the process. As a result of the response to the Consultation Document and our further assessments we have been able to refine our initial assessment process and indicate those options on which we now need to concentrate our attention. I am convinced that this is the appropriate way forward and, although not everyone will be happy with the position reached, it may help to allay the fears of some residents in those areas where we are not now looking to proceed with further studies.”
TheCounty have announced a major review of waste management in the district. The 'Minerals and Waste Core Strategy' plan is to be reconsidered. We wait to hear the implications for Laybrook
Cory have dropped their application for the landfill. You can read their letter here. I would advise, however, a careful look at the document and in particular at Cory's Malcom Ward's comment half-way down page 2 (his last sentance) regarding 'West Sussex' - "Shields up, Mr Sulu" as they said in Star Trek, and to continue with the (adjusted) proverb - "This ain't over 'til the fat lady sings".
Both the Gazette and County Times this week carry similar cautions.