HURSTPIERPOINT SOCIETY

REGISTERED CHARITY NO.263520

5 St George’s Place, Hurstpierpoint, West Sussex. BN6 9QT

Tel: 01273 832366 email:

Mrs K King

Mid Sussex District Council,

Oaklands Road,

Haywards Heath,

West Sussex,

RH16 1SS

15 January 2013

Dear Mrs King

Planning Application 12/04141/OUT

Residential development for 140 units on land at Little Park Farm and 17 units on land North of Highfield Drive, together with a change of use from agricultural land to a country open space, a temporary construction access from Chalkers Lane servicing the Little Park Farm development proposal. | Land At Little Park Farm And Land North Of Highfield Drive Hurstpierpoint West Sussex

Our Society has approximately 1,000 members in this village and one of the objectives of the Society is “for the public benefit to protect and conserve the natural and built environment of Hurstpierpoint and the surrounding area”. Therefore, we very much hope that this objection will be given substantial consideration.

We are concerned that there are currently two major applications for the village of Hurstpierpoint (this and 12/03972/FUL for land at College Lane) for a total of 250 houses. Whist we reluctantly accept that the village will need to take more housing, the current numbers in the draft Parish Plan are for 160 - 200 over the next20 years. We already have permission for 38 houses in Chalkers Lane and there are a number of small permissions granted, for example on the old Kave site in Western Road. To contemplate another 250 houses on top of these within the next 5 years (probably) is of great concern in the context of a 20-year plan. We therefore hope that these two sites will be considered together in terms of the impact on the Village and its infrastructure.

This application covers two sites, both of which are currently agricultural land, but the Little Park site also contains ancient woodland. In 2002, Hurstpierpoint Society purchased the strip of land known as Ladies Walk that lies to the south of this site and we also have a license to manage a second section of woodland which stretches from behind the Scout Headquarters to the Millennium Gardens. The land was purchased to preserve and care for the woodland as a natural habitat for wildlife and to provide a visual natural barrier between housing in the village and the countryside beyond. This illustrates the importance we attach to the woodland adjacent to our village.

However, the proposed access from Iden Hurst will dissect the ancient woodland to the west of the site and result in the loss of some important trees, in particular, three B category Oak trees. These trees are visually important, particularly from Iden Hurst, and any replacement planting will not only take a long time to replace the visual scene, but will also change it because of the need to plant in different places. Ancient woodland is specifically protected by para 118 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF):

“ Planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland and the loss of aged or veteran trees found outside ancient woodland, unless the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss.”

Therefore, although the Planning Statement (PS) refers to paras 11-16 of the NPPF, which state there is a presumption in favour of sustainable development, this is overridden by the need to demonstrate that the need and benefits of the development outweigh this loss.

Whilst it is acknowledged that the site is included in the draft Parish Council Neighbourhood Plan (although not supported by the majority of people responding to the latest consultation) and the District Council has no 5 year land supply (although this situation is changing with the number of large developments being considered), the Applicant stills needs to successfully argue that severing the continuity of this important woodland and wildlife corridor to create the access to the site from Iden Hurst is justified. This has largely been ignored in the PS, which states: “The planning assessment has identified no major planning constraints.”

The application sites are located outside the built up area boundaries of Hurstpierpoint and Hurst Wickham in previously identified areas of development constraint (draft Parish Plan 2011). The Highfield Drive site has also previously been refused at appeal (APP/D3830/A/11/2160683) and the important considerations given for refusal were in paras 13 – 17, which included:

“...the loss of open land would erode to its detriment the relationship between the conservation area and the surrounding landscape, affecting the ability to appreciate and understand its historic development. Part of the semi-rural quality would be lost to the detriment of the character and appearance of the conservation area when experienced from within and around the area.

…The appeal scheme would fail to comply with PPS5, and the Mid-Sussex Local Plan (LP) policies B12 and B15 which seek to preserve or enhance the character and appearance of the conservation area.

…The harm to the character of the conservation area would erode its contribution to the attractive character and diversity of the settlement as a whole. The proposal would be contrary to the aforementioned polices relating to the conservation area and to LP policies C1 and B1 which seek to protect local character.”

Whilst PPS5 has been revoked, conservation areas are now protected by the NPPF in section 12. Despite the Inspector’s comments above, the Design and Access Statement (DAS) and the Landscape Report describe the area as “inward looking, focusing on the narrow street scene.” There is no reference to the significance of the relationship between the conservation area and its surrounding landscape of open land. Also, whilst this application has a different layout, layout is not a reserved matter unlike the previous outline application.

Looking at the overall application, we are disappointed that it is in outline with only access being a reserved matter. There are no specific designs, with the DAS making references to “principles” and including lots of photographs that cover virtually all styles of architecture and attractive countryside views, with a few rough sketches. While the outline aerial sketch views of RD1, RD2 and RD3 may look reasonable, these are very small with little detail and may bear little resemblance to the final design. This makes it very difficult to form an objective opinion about the overall effect.

This lack of detail extends to the highways proposals, as recognised by West Sussex County Council in their planning consultation response. With the traffic issues in and around Hurstpierpoint being well documented and the Parish Council looking at traffic management schemes to cope with the current problems within the Village, the traffic analysis provided seems inadequate. The TRICS assessment excludes the projected increase in development from the consented application at Chalkers Lane. Nor does it take account of the proposed changes for added pedestrian phases at the Stonepound crossroads. With an additional 157 homes (potentially more if other applications are approved) adding to these problems, the increase in traffic will cause an unacceptable impact on the local environment in terms of road safety and increased traffic and is contrary to policy T4 in the Mid Sussex Local Plan.

The application will also have other infrastructure implications:

  • It is noted that Southern Water admits to the inadequate capacity in the local network to provide foul sewage disposal to service the proposed development. But worryingly, they also comment that the proposed development may increase the risk of flooding to existing properties and land.
  • The local primary school is currently increasing its intake. However, this is in order to deal with the current serious shortfall in places.
  • With the proposed increase in the number of houses in Hurstpierpoint and Hassocks there is no doubt that there will be insufficient places to provide a local choice for secondary education.

Finally, the application includes a change of use from agricultural land to a country open space extending to some 18.63 hectares. This will either be transferred to the Parish Council or run by a management company. The applicant states that this would safeguard this land from future development and would allow public access. However, we are not sure how this can be guaranteed in the long term. We are also not sure where the funding for the maintenance of this in perpetuity would come from.

In conclusion, the application appears premature, lacking in detail with some omissions, and with insufficient consultation with local residents. The NPPF states that the presumption in favour of sustainable development only applies where “any adverse impacts will demonstrably outweigh the benefits” and this outline application does not demonstrate this. Therefore, this application should be refused.

Yours sincerely

Andrew Hair

Secretary

Affiliated to the Federation of Sussex Amenity Societies (members of The Civic Trust); The South Downs Society;

Action in Rural Sussex; The Campaign for the Preservation of Rural England; Sussex Wildlife Trust; Open Spaces Society