Abingworth Phase 2: digest of responses to invitation to comment via website – as at 11/8/16
We believe some additional houses could be included but not at the level proposed by the developer. For every unit it is highly likely you will have two additional cars. When it comes to properties for older residents why it is not possible to incorporate a small number of bungalows as stairs are frequently a problem. Croudace built them in Pulborough a couple of years ago and they sold quickly. We doubt that any additional properties added now will have any effect on the future demands on house building in our area. We believe the council should resist pressure from the developer to merely make more money out of the project now that it has started. Perhaps inviting one of the retirement properties specialists to build maisonettes would increase the number of units without using more land. When it comes to additional amenities, surely the most important missing element is the doctor's surgery. It would appear Storrington council are against extending the Glebe Surgery in the glebe field and it seems Mill Stream is now not to be rebuilt.
This housing Development was supposed to have built the Village Hall and the Pre School before the housing plus it was agreed to a certain number of houses .This has not happened, instead they have reduced the amount of parking for the Village Hall, stopped dog walkers as well as raised the level of the Football pitch and still no football is being allowed on the ground.So when is the Hall being actually built?. When is the Pre School building going to be built?
The increase in the number of housing is what I expected the Company to apply for and Horsham Council allow. No consideration to local views given. But what I feel is wrong is yet again there is so little housing for true Local people. There should be a better mix of housing and not just more big houses. More 3 or 2 bedroom houses, all of which should blend in what is already here. But in reality where is the transport to support even more people yet alone the Schools and the GP Surgery.
Our Neighbourhood Plan is well underway and includes the 146 homes. We have also identified more as required over the next 20 years. The local plan for HDC has also been adopted. With brexit, the perceived need for extra homes may change over time and due to this uncertainty, it would be unwise to accept more now. The original homes were only ever agreed due to exceptional circumstances, and otherwise would have not been permitted. Additionally the type of homes for the village is wrong - homes for the over 55s with no nearby facilities, doctors or transport should not have been included. This is still a small village, with no sustainable transport, and only one narrow dangerous road in and out of the village. To add more homes increases the unsustainability of the development without any additional benefit to the village. If the mix of homes is changed, even without the extra homes the question of schooling and sustainable routes to school within the village will have to be reviewed. Also with no additional employment in the area, most residents would be commuting out of the village daily by car.
Hi Alan, Thanks for the update. 40-50 extra houses sounds a lot to fit into the remaing site and suggests some of the openness such as the allotments seen in the current plan would be sacrificed - this would not be acceptable especially as the Parish has a long overdue obligation to provide allotments yet I note this is missing from your above quoted existing facilities. If minor changes could be achieved without an increase in the building footprints (5 bed detached replaced by two 3 bed semi) then +10/20 max
It would be nice to mix it up a bit including family housing rather then just executive homes. It is a real shame and crazy that a Primary school was not thought of when the plans were put together, as my daughter is currently at Thakeham First school and will be relocating next year to the Rydon site. If there are more families moving to the area a Primary school is what is really needed next to the new Pre-school.
I regard this current development as completely unsustainable and severely damaging to the Thakeham environment. Our 3 District councillors were all failures voting in favour of the planning application and will get no further votes from me. I would not support our Parish Council looking for any reasons to justify this additional unsustainable housing application that will further increase our village population resulting in another 100 more cars. It would also put more pressure on the facilities and traffic/parking/schools congestion in the already air polluted Storrington. Any further agreement to planning applications will encourage developers to try even more. It is sad that our Thakeham First School is being relocated to the Rydon site. As a Parish Councillor I was a school Governor and I worked with the County Council to improve the walking route to school to reduce the car journeys. There is no walking route to Rydon School for the majority of First School students and moving away from the centre of our village will increase car journeys and reduce the local involvement. Another 50 affordable houses are not required to meet local need and will increase the demand for school places.
Whilst I appreciate that an increase in the number of houses may mean that the needs of more local people can be met, I am already very concerned about the increased number of vehicle movements that will be created by the development as it stands now. The road through Thakeham is narrow with several blind bends and, what with the HGV' movements that are generated by the mushroom farm, I can only see it becoming more dangerous. Perhaps the developers should be forced to make major road improvements (difficult I know but not impossible) if they are to be allowed to build more homes. After all one should not forget that their objective will be maximum profit, not meeting local needs.
[This response from a potential Abingworth house buyer, rather than a resident]
I thought that the Parish, it's residents and council had already discussed at length and agreed the exising draft np submitted for approval. The new proposals just add more roads, more traffic, more bodies, movement and noise. They completely change the nature of what was supposed to be a large well spaced development with large plots and a feling of space. It will also devalue the phase 1 properties around the cricket pitch. There is a!so concern stil about all the surrounding fields including those used for existing farming. With regard to facilities, then a decent regular sustainable bus link between tnis site and both Storrigton and Pulborough, Horsham is essential for both existing use and certainly for proposed plan. Compas has confirmed that this is not commercially viable.
I am against these new proposals. With proper transport links put in place - along with doctors, or at least a transport link to what is expected to be developed eventually in Storington, then why is there a need to change the agreed plan. There is much development already underway at the Crest site which caters for smaller units, plus other nearby sites. I do wonder why the suddden change of heart?Whatever happens, use of the expression sustainability must incude addressing tbe essential need for transport for those unable to drive for whatever reason. Despite the questionable conlusions in the report on such matters, this link between the development and Storrington is neither safe nor practical to walkfor very many people, young or old. Particularly in the dark, wet or winter. This needs full consideration and sensible solution. Whatever the decision on totally changing thenature of this development.
An increase in the number of houses on this site seems sensible if 1) smaller, more affordable houses predominate and 2) future development of green field sites is commensurately reduced.
I think it's crucial that we include housing provision for families. We do not want over 55's residence increased, we want to make Thakeham village alive, not stagnant. At the moment it is dominated by older residents. You need younger families to help grow the community and actually make a difference, to help Thakeham feel like a village (at the moment it's a drive through village) How would the preschool survive if there are no local families to support such a fantastic new space??? If they're applying for more housing, then I would ensure that there is a multi sport facility/court - ie for tennis, basketball, football 5 aside. Perhaps this can actually be funded by the Section 106 agreement? As extra money is normally put aside for recreation facilities - is this something the parish council have already approached WSCC or developers? What is actually being used under section 106 agreement in this development???
Author: A HARMAN (IP: 10.4.131.210, 10.4.131.210)
Email: RL:
Has anyone given any thought who will keep the cricket fields and pavilions and football pitchesWe need a gang mower small tractor to be given to the village with a covered storage for it The developers could provide it and I for one and many others could have a rotor to use the machinery The whole thing will become a jungle and dog toilet otherwise
Hi, I support a change in the housing mix to allow more small and medium properties so all age groups are likely to benefit. There may well be additional traffic but we need to be able to cope with this.I agree that this would help resist speculative development of less suitable green spaces over coming years. There may also be an opportunity to secure additional village benefits, beyond the new facilities already due from the project (new Village Hall, shop, sports facilities and Pre-school). Thakeham badly needs better public transport to Storrington, Horsham and Pulborough and safe cycling and walking paths to Storrington at least. Thank you.
Regarding the proposed changes to the Abingworth Development Site, I give you my comments as you requested.
I am totally against any increase in the number of houses, the Planners and Developers should have got the numbers right at the the time of the original application. The village cannot cope with these numbers of houses, it is already unsustainable and permission was only given to support the Mushroom Farm in a very controversial manner.
This application is just greed with no care or understanding for the Village of Thakeham and must be must be objected to in the strongest of terms.
I do support a change in the housing mix, and having 55 retirement houses in the original proposal was not a way to encourage new families to come to Thakeham. Having more family homes will also improve numbers at Thakeham (to be) Primary School. We definitely need more affordable housing with a range of financing packages (e.g. Part ownership) to allow younger families to buy rather than rent (Can any financing support be made available as part of a S106?)
The original proposal was deemed to be an "unsustainable" development. So by having extra residents, this statement does not change it just increases the problems with infrastructure and the number of vehicle movements. More houses will mean more roads and likely street lights, thereby decreasing the "dark skies" area by extra light pollution.
Any housing development can always accommodate extra housing, it was designed to do so -- thats how developers work! It is of course a way of recovering losses due to underestimating the original business case and if this were the case it would be expedient for the developers to admit this.
If it helps the Parish Plan to be endorsed then an increase of 40/50 houses on the existing site would be beneficial, given that another part of the parish may not be blighted by another development. (Watch this space on the main site!!!! - have the PC checked on the progress of the original plan to build new growing sheds?). The density of the houses currently under construction looks to be very compact, with little space between the plots, which I consider to be against the original concept of making the development feel spacious and countrified. However, that appears to be acceptable to house purchasers.
I would rather improve the standard of the existing promised facilities rather than adding new ones, for example having a caretakers house for the facilities (could be part of the maintenance costs) and also having traffic calming improvements e.g. at the B2133 end of Cray's Lane
I am responding to the article in Issue 46 of the Parish newsletter. I support the expanded development if it provides more affordable homes as suggested. However, this will only increase pressure on schools and doctors facilities. I hope that we might be able to use this to put pressure on Horsham DC to take a more realistic approach to both the move of Rydon School to a full secondary school and to allow the much needed expansion of the Glebe Surgery. As things currently stand I am starting to despair at the lack of local democracy.
I have just seen your report in the latest Thakeham PC News letter about the desire of Abingworth Developments to ratchet up the number of agreed houses by an additional up to 50. To me the real motive of the developer appears to be much more about increasing their profit by creating as many houses as possible (as all developers would want to and not that I would knock them as business for wanting to do this of course). The following example observations/questions are somewhat rhetorical, but I would ask .....
-Where are are the local jobs that all these local people will be able to fill ? And the ones that can be accessed conveniently by public transport and not via cars/motorcycyles ? By way of an example I am personally being made redundant in the next two weeks after 21 years in my local job. I know as a result that I am very highly likely have to travel significantly more frequently and also further afield in my next role, when I actually find it that is.
-where is the local infrastructure that will cope with all these additional people and cars ? (?) - Drs, Dentists, Schools (with Rydon looking as though it may well close at some point in the not too distant future !) e.t.ce.t.c.
-what will this do for the current pollution levels in Storrington and also the gridlock on the local roads, particularly at peak times, but often even in the 12-2pm period in the High Street.
If there are just two people in each of the additional 50 houses, but each has a vehicle and each makes just two return journeys to and from their house per day, this alone will mean an additional 400 traffic movements a day onto the narrow Saxon drove road that we know now as the B2139, into Storrington which is already a designated AQMA pollution wise. And also onto the surrounding roads such as the often congested A283. With the development of the Brownfield site at Paula Rosa set to hapen over the next few years (not that I am against developing on Brownfield sites per se) this in itself will bring a significant increase to traffic and associated burden on the alreading breaking at the seams local infrastructure.
I would highlight the Planning Inspector's finding in his June 2016 dismissal of the recent appeal of the development of the land off Bax Close Storrington( APP/Z3825/W/15/3128935 and APP/Z3825/W/15/3141250 ). I note he said there was/found "no shortfall in the supply of housing" versus HDCs' Demonstrateable Five Year Housing land Supply.
I would like to hope that when ratified and passed into law, that the Thakeham Neighbourhood Plan would be of significant weight alongside HDC's agreed plan to make it particularly difficult for an Inspector at an apppeal to agree to a further speculative Greenfield development which was not contained in either of these. I therefore urge the Parish Council to seriously consider rejecting this/any revision of this that brings with it more people with their associated extra cars/vehicles and demands on the local infrastructure.
I have concerns as to how the additional 40-50 houses can be built in the same size plot without producing an inferior living environment and one that is certainly less attractive.
Why are we now discussing what type of housing would be best and suggesting a different mix of properties would be preferable. Surely in the original development plans the developers should have been told that the requirement wasn't for 'luxury 4 and 5 bedroom houses'.
It seems common practice for developers to put forward the most acceptable proposal for it to be accepted, only to change it later for the worse.
There will also be a greater increase in traffic accessing and exiting the development onto what is quite a fast and busy road with a difficult turning..
Any increase in population clearly puts a strain on all local services but I would not be in favour of an increase in properties with the promise of additional facilities being provided by the developers as these often seem to fall by the wayside once the properties are complete.
I am not in favour of any increase in housing on the Abingworth site.
I am also disappointed that the chairman should be presenting the consultation in such a biased way in favour of the increase. It feels like there is no point in a consultation at all.