Local Development Framework Response

Fairwarp Community Society

Local Development Framework Response

The following documents the Fairwarp Community Society’s response to the Wealden District Council Local Development Framework.

Background

The Society held a consultation exercise jointly with Maresfield Parish Council during late July and early August 2007. This document records the view of the society based on the feedback from the membership of the society (some 50 plus members were involved)

Members were asked five questions:

Should there be any more housing in Fairwarp Ward and if so how much and of what type?
The current document has a stated option of 500 houses for Maresfield Ward (this figure may well be significantly reduced after consultation). What implications would this have on the community of Fairwarp?
Should any additional housing within Fairwarp Ward be tied in to an improvement in the infrastructure e.g. transport etc?
What thoughts do you have regarding attracting additional employment into Fairwarp Ward?
What other facilities would you like to see within Fairwarp Ward?

All member feedback was captured on a simple questionnaire and this has been consolidated. (See Appendix I for the feedback received)

Question One: Should there be any more housing in Fairwarp Ward and if so how much and of what type?

The clear majority of members (21 out of 26 responses) wish to see very limited development in Fairwarp. This should be restricted to affordable housing (not just social housing). There is recognition of a number of areas of need:

Key workers
Local young people
Older people wishing to “downsize”

There are a number of considerations/concerns raised:

Must strictly limited
Retain the small village, rural environment of Fairwarp
Requires improvement in infrastructure (see question 3 below)

Question Two: The Development of 500 home in Maresfield

The consensus amongst members is that the proposed scale is too great. Concerns range from:

The creation of a small town
Impact on Quality of Life
Lack of infrastructure to support such a development
Increase in traffic on roads in area
Lack of facilities – health, education, etc.

The view is that, whilst development is inevitable, the scale should be significantly reduced. Whilst the question asks about Maresfield, there is concern about the number of other developments that will impact Fairwarp, e.g. North Uckfield, Grampian Foods, and current agreed plans for Maresfield.

The very nature of the Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty is at risk if the scale of development was to proceed.

Question Three: Should Developments be linked to improvements in infrastructure?

The majprity of members are in favour of making a link between new developents and seeking improvements in infrastructure. A number of members stated that it was either unrealistic or the lack of development then they answered with a no.

Fairwarp and Maresfield suffer the same issues and we wish to see major improvements before further developments are agreed. These include:

Road restriction and quietening - especially on B2026 and surrounding roads of Fairwarp Ward
Improvements to Schooling - primary and secondary
Tackling of lack of Healthcare Facilities in area - GP, dentist, A&E
Shop in Fairwarp
Better Facilities for young people, e.g. Café/Youth Centre
Improvement in Public transport services (community 'hopper' bus service)
Basic infrastructure in place to support development - fuel, electricity, water, sewage, drainage
Development of employment opportunities to support scale of development proposed in and around Uckfield

Question Four: Employment in the Area

The views of members are mixed on additional employment opportunities with the Fairwarp Ward. There is recognition of the need to attract additional opportunities in local towns to the area. However, without improvement in transport there are issues with any development.

The train link between Uckfield and Lewes must be reinstated
Tackling the issue of poor roads and speeding
Ensuring lorries are restricted and do not use minor roads
Improvement in bus infrastructure

What employment opportunities might exist are limited with Fairwarp. Encourangement of small, local business would be beneficial.

Question Five: Other Facilities

There are four main themes from members. These are:

Shop for the community
Imrovement in Youth facilities and Sports Facilities
Tackling the issue of transport
Improving Healthcare and Education for the area

These issues exist today and any development plan must tackle these.

Conclusion

Fairwarp is currently no directly affected by the Local Development Framework. However, the issues about infrastructure exist now and will only be worsened by an increase in households in Maresfield and Uckfield.

As a community, we wish to be forward focused and not simply saying no to any future developments. We would wish to continue with any consultation/dialogue on how the area develops and will continue to work with Maresfield Parish Council to ensure the views on the community are included.

Contact details

The Society can be contacted through either of the following officers:

Chair of Society / Hon. Secretary of the Society
Craig Williams
Rock-a-nore
The Street
Fairwarp, TN22 3BP
01825 712373 / Lampool Edge
Lampool Corner
Fairwarp, TN22 3DS
01825 713477
/

Appendix 1: Individual Member Comments/Feedback

1. Should there be any more housing in Fairwarp Ward and if so how much and of what type?

(i) The village must accept some “limited” development or we risk an elitist label. As to the number and type our village land is extremely scarce for building opportunities. So in number terms by default it cannot be many and as to the type I would have thought KEY WORKER homes could be an advantage.

(ii) We believe a small development of new housing in the Fairwarp Ward could be beneficial to the local community, providing this housing aimed to cater for needs that are not currently met by existing dwellings; namely flats, sheltered housing, maisonettes, and possibly small affordable family homes, and these could be made available through a variety of means including rental, part-buy, or buy outright. The development should not number more than twenty homes, with twelve dwellings a likely optimum. The location of these homes would require very careful planning, with agreement by the local community a prerequisite. The homes should be built in a style sympathetic to the existing dwellings and local style, and should be 'environmentally friendly'. Most importantly, the construction of these homes should only be considered once required improvements in infrastructure had been implemented.

(iii) Only very small amount (of present housing).

(iv) Not until there is an improvement in hospital facilities (proposed down grading of Princess Royal Hospital is disastrous), secondary education & transport.

(v) No major developments. Some small in-fills only so as to preserve the community. Affordable Housing (co-ownership?) ideally with car parking sufficient for size of property. Retain ANOB as only village on forest.

(vi) Up to 50 houses. Part ownership homes 2/3 bedrooms with off-road parking. Ownership/residency linked to previous residency in Fairwarp. No right to sublet.

(vii) Very few, but affordable housing should be a priority.

(viii) Very small development in Forge Lane for instance but in order to preserve the village I cannot see how we can develop any further.

(ix) Very limited – e.g. 20 at most.

(x) Yes, but the right amount and size in the right place.

(xi) Yes but only affordable housing for the young people of families in the area.

(xii) Yes – for elderly people downsizing and affordable housing

(xiii) No

(xiv) It would be a good idea to have, say 15 new properties in Fairwarp, being a mix of social/housing association properties to rent and low cost affordable housing to develop the area. What about sheltered accommodation for Forest folk no longer able to live independently?

(xv) I'd like to see some improvement to the sports pavilion, provision of a youth club/centre and maybe a day centre for the elderly.

(xvi) A small amount of affordable housing could be considered.

(xvii) Limited amount to include low cost housing and allowing development of outbuildings to provide accommodation for carers/dependant relatives.

(xviii) Small starter homes for rent to the young and small houses to buy for people to sell up and stay in the village.

(xviv) Very limited low cost housing

(xx) No

(xxi) None, either in the village or the ward. The village settlement boundary should be maintained to protect the character of the village. Once one development is allowed outside the boundary then there will be pressures from other developers and very quickly a precedent will be set allowing more and more building. Any additional development would increase traffic and potentially involve the loss of the amenity that we all currently enjoy and the reason why most people live in the village and ward. Similarly the open spaces elsewhere within the ward particularly the B2026 should be maintained.

(xxii) Yes, starter homes to help 1st time buyers. Maybe 50 or so units. Possibly some retirement units.

(xxiii) No – put more housing in towns & preserve the rural countryside.

(xxiv) No - we should keep the village atmosphere. – 6 year old

(xxv) There should be 2/3 small, well designed, individual groupings (10ish) of homes for first-time buyers. Homes which although low-cost are designed for the picturesque & economic benefit of the village as well as the owners. Which has not happened in the development of Maresfield.

(xxvi) Fairwarp Ward has insufficient infrastructure to support vast amounts of new housing. There is a definite demand for some kind of social housing. It would be good to provide accommodation for people originally from the area unable to return due to high house prices. Some form of housing association scheme might be the way to go if the accommodation always remains ‘affordable’.

(xxvii) I would think that there are very limited options for more housing, perhaps an odd infill property. If we must have ‘affordable housing’ then considerable care needs to be taken regarding the existing infrastructure e.g. drainage, water supply and access. The whole ward is a very beautiful area and I would not like to see it substantially altered by adding a number of tiny houses with no gardens just because that is the politically correct thing to do.

(xxviii) Yes, I think we do need some new housing in Fairwarp Ward. Maybe 20 affordable houses for the young people that live in the ward, and our young people that have had to move out of the ward and would like to move back. There does need to be a way of keeping them as affordable/low cost housing, maybe by use of covenants.

(xxviv) Not social housing, affordable housing for the youngsters of he community and somehow putting a covenant on the properties so that they are available for future generations of Fairwarp Ward. Up to a max of 30 over the next 20 years.

(xxvv) The only need in Fairwarp Ward is for affordable housing for purchase or part purchase, with a very small percentage for rent. We need to concentrate our efforts on keeping our youngsters local or we will end up with a dying village, it is heading this way already – hence the lack of local groups like youth groups etc as there are no longstanding connections between families in the Ward. Housing should be protected by placing covenants on the housing allowing them to be sold primarily to specifically targeted people, and at a percentage of the market value only.

2. The current document has a stated option of 500 houses for Maresfield Ward (this figure may well be significantly reduced after consultation). What implications would this have on the community of Fairwarp?

(i) I would have thought that other than some local traffic issues the impact on the community of Fairwarp is limited. The impact on other local amenities is likely to be considerable. On a positive note we could even benefit if resources to support this amount of development takes place.

(ii) The proposed housing developments in Maresfield Parish, Wealden District, and the county of East Sussex will doubtlessly have a detrimental effect on the quality of living in this area and make it a less pleasant place to live by undermining the relative peace and tranquility of the area, increasing the pressure on roads and local services, reducing the aesthetic qualities of the locality, negatively impacting the environment, and leading to social pressures as the result of increased population, community tensions, and the lack of employment opportunities in the local area. Within the Maresfield Parish there are quite simply insufficient employment opportunities to support anything but the smallest (5-10%) increase in population. Specifically, the implications for Fairwarp are :-

- Greater competition for very limited local employment opportunities

- Increased traffic in locality (especially road commuters on the B2026) and resulting decrease in 'tranquility', increased risk of accidents along local lanes, increased traffic using village as a cut-through.

- Greater pressure and competition for local school places.

- Greater pressure and competition for local healthcare provision.

- Negative impact on environment - aesthetic, pollution.

- Potential threat to integrity of village boundaries.

- Possible increase in social problems including unemployment, poverty, crime, delinquency, drugs, etc.

(iii) Would effectively create a “new town” without proper infrastructure. Should only be a % increase in existing size. Roads will suffer.

(iv) Limitations in Secondary Education will impact on Fairwarp residents. Severe increase in no of cars on local roads.

(v) Very bad re traffic through village, B2026, A 22 etc. Too narrow to take this. Lack of educational facilities for children. Transport – non-existent. Now would it be improved?

(vi) Very difficult to predict other than massive impact. This would swamp Fairwarp and destroy the community as it is today. The load infrastructure is insufficient. The B2026 goes across an area of outstanding beauty. It cannot be upgraded nor should it be to accommodate this development. Where will these people work?

(vii) Too much strain on local services & roads. The risk of having a huge housing estate without a social infrastructure.

(viii) Increased traffic, reduced opportunities & amenities for all.

(ix) Traffic, schools.

(x) Fairwarp does not have the facilities to cope with too many.

(xi) Before houses are built the sewerage must be sorted.

1. Improved facilities locally

2. Some dilution of amenity (more cars on roads)/ outweighed by 1

(xiii) All the areas below are currently either at capacity or overloaded therefore all would have to be addressed.

Road and transport infrastructure
Education at both primary and secondary level
Utilities
Health service provision / GPs
Leisure facilities

(xiv)The implications of the proposed new build in Five Ash Down, Maresfield and Nutley will have enormous effect on Fairwarp:-

Access from and to Cackle Street, Old Forge Lane, Nursery Lane etc. Road usage will increase. Speed restrictions need to be put in place on B2026 and A26 on approaches to new housing estates and access roads. We regularly have accidents on the stretch between Barnsgate Manor and Temple Grove.

No public transport at present

Effects on water supply and sewerage.

Will there be an input from the Environmental Agency? What do the Conservators of the Forest have to say, if anything?

Where will the children from these new homes go to school? There is already a shortage of secondary places in the area - will this be taken into account?

Is there provision for a new doctor's surgery?

(xv) Not acceptable as it would nearly double the current size of Maresfield. The increased demand on roads, schools, medical facilities etc preclude it from being a realistic option. The present character of Maresfield would be destroyed. The inhabitants of Maresfield should decide what is acceptable.

(xvi) Increased traffic problems on B2026; use of lanes around Fairwarp as rat-runs. B2026 commuter traffic is already very much heavier and more dangerous than many years ago. 500 new houses in Maresfield means 1000 more cars since most households might be expected to have two cars

(xvii) Increased pressure on all amenities most of which are already stretched to the limit.

(xviii) Increased traffic/over subscribed schools/doctors surgeries

(xviv) Very serious implications as development would be towards Fairwarp and the Ashdown Forest

(xx)With such an increase in the population, there would be a need for more schools, provision for health services, utilities and I roads would have to be looked at to cater for the increased usage and volume

(xxi)This is far too many and will have an adverse effect on Fairwarp and the surrounding environment, the effects obviously increased traffic on the existing roads and the effects these properties would have on current schools, NHS facilities etc. There isn’t the employment opportunities in the area for such an increase and therefore these people will have to commute and travel through the ward.

(xxii) Too many and nowhere realistic to put them.

(xxiii) Fewer school places for Fairwarp children. Increased traffic. Additional requirement for medical facilities. Waste disposal & other utilities.

(xxiv) Less places for kids to go to school. – 6 year old

(xxv) Traffic through the village & on B2026 which is already acting as a rat-run. It is only a matter of time before someone is run over because of speeding drivers!

(xxvi) There would be definite knock on effects which could suffocate Fairwarp ward. There is no infrastructure as such. Public transport facilities are appalling and roads are not designed for high volumes. Schools in all local wards are stretched and shops of any nature are limited. Maresfield and Fairwarp are very intertwined already. Any development will affect Fairwarp ward as much as Maresfield ward.

(xxvii) A development of this size would change the nature of Maresfield, making it a satellite of Uckfield. Specific implications for Fairwarp would be a great strain on schools, doctors, local hospitals, other local facilities and worst of all increased traffic on already busy roads. There is very little public transport in this area, nearby schools are full or nearly so, necessitating more car journeys. A development as large as this could not be supported.