Summary of Individual Representations made in accordance with

Transcription

Summary of Individual Representations made in
accordance with Regulation 22(c) (iii) in order of
the Proposed Submission Strategic Sites Local
Plan
Summary of Individual Representions - Strategic Sites Local Plan Issues and Options Regulation 18
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Representation ID 14
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Probably depends upon the area and nature of the development. Affordable housing very important, but
important also in the current economic climate not to make overly prohibitive provisions on property developers
who are struggling.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This should be based on local surveys, eg How many new young teachers or nurses/care workers per year are
appointed and require local, low cost accommodation?
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is a need for smaller, affordable homes, whether they are starter homes or homes that enable a family to
downsize when children leave home or if they wish to reduce their outgoings. The price of houses, in my opinion,
are grossly inflated and younger people do not have the opportunity to get on the property ladder or stay in the
Town they were born in. We require more social housing that can be rented by families and people unable to
secure a mortgage. Private landlords can sometimes charge high rents that are not in line with the housing
benefit allowance and this also causes people problems if they experience periods of unemployment or illness.
We also need more accommodation that has been adapted for disabled people and changes to shops are
required to ensure equal opportunities are awarded to all residents of our Towns in Wealden. There is a lack of
disabled parking spaces too this needs to be addressed when building more homes.
Page 1 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Affordable housing should not mean young couples or single people in houses or flats so small they cannot
swing a cat so to speak, and any of this housing must not be at the expense of the environment- no more green
space and ancient hedgerows, trees and views enjoyed for centuries by existing dwellers must be ruined in
creating this housing.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 627465
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Edwards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To give young local people a chance to buy
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Different sites even within the same area have different characteristics. The make-up of the housing mix must,
therefore, be precisely matched to each specific site.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Maresfield Residents Group
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Yes. The requirement for small homes is growing because single parent families are increasing and many young
adults continue to live with parents but want smaller cheaper homes as a first rung on the property ladder. Unless
a minimum of first start smaller homes on new sites is stipulated by Wealden D. C. potential developers will not
provide them as, in the main, more profit is derived from larger homes.
Page 2 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision of adequate numbers of smaller homes is important in planning for the future needs of the ageing
population and small family units. Not all want or can afford large houses. If there is no prescribed minimum then
developers will only proivde larger homes that cost more and give them greater profit
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There needs to be far more affordable homes for first time buyers.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Crowborough Town Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To meet the demand for this type of dwelling
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Berwick Parish Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There has been too much emphasis by developers to build 4 and 5 bedroom properties on sites in the more rural
areas, and this does not permit local residents to 'downsize' so as to remain in the area.
Page 3 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Polegate Town Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Increasing elderly population requires the provision of affordable smaller homes
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Roebuck Park Residents Association
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The need for affordable housing should be governed by the need for the area not the builders
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With an ageing population mixed developments encompassing homes for younger people, younger families and
integrated smaller properties for older retired people should target the release into the market of larger houses
currently occupied by older couples or individuals. Putting older people into residential homes that become
isolationist is a poor response for the whole community.
Page 4 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
WE DON'T WANT THE COUNTRYSIDE DESTORYED FOR THE MAKING OF NEW HOMES IN
HAWKENBURY TUNBRIDGE WELLS AREA WITHOUT A THOUROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
ASSESSMENT DONE ON THE AFFCETS OF HOUSING SO MANY PEOPLE IN A SMALL AREA OF
TUNBRIDGE WELLS; WHICH IS IN KENT, AND WE DON'T NEED THE EXTRA PEOPLE IN HAWKENBURY
WHICH WOULD DESTROY OUR LANDSCAPE
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106709
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Holmes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
too many large houses being built
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Smaller affordable housing for young or older people is extremely important- without it the stress on people,
single or families is huge and can create social problems. However this affordable housing should be attractive
and designed to maximise renewable energy collection and be a safe and secure environment for all.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 630362
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Robertson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
My comments are reflected in para 2.4 of the "Managing the delivery of Housing background document".
Page 5 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629287
Agent ID 629284
Mr
Thomas
Servomex Ltd
Mr
Thomas
DPDS Consulting Group
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Disagree. Whilst achieving a mix of housing is supported in principle by PPS3, the mix of housing required for
different types of household over the plan period will depend on current and future demographic trends and
profiles, the accommodation requirements of specific groups and the diverse range of requirements across the
plan area. Indeed the differing circumstances between the north and the south of the District are referred to in
paragraph 3.10 of the consultation document. Any reference to a 20% figure should be a guideline only rather
than a firm requirement. Flexibility is important and the mix of dwelling types and sizes to be provided should be
negotiated on a site by site basis to depend on the overall size of the development proposed, the characteristics
of the site and its locality, and the scale and nature of housing need and demand. For these reasons the Council
and NPA should not be more specific about the percentage of different sizes of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes to be
provided nor should developers be asked to provide more than 20% of smaller homes.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Affordable housing should be put where it is needed to regenerate villages and allow young people to remain in
the areas in which they were born.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Essential to provide affordable housing but this to include single story units for the elderly and those needing
assistance - See the Deene project at |Crowborough. Such housing to be over and above the affordable housing
percentage allocation. The housing spacing/ area to be within the Government guidlines of around 35 per hectare.
Page 6 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 521490
Agent ID 521485
Ms
Smith
WE Vine Trust
Mr
Gillespie
Impact Planning Services Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No. To do this would lead to a â€œforcedâ€ architectural form and site layout response which may not be
suitable in terms of every siteâ€™s characteristics and circumstances. It is also important to understand the
financial implications of such a policy in terms of resultant overall development value and the ability of the
siteâ€™s residual value to withstand the financial consequences taking into account all other infrastructure and
related costs which have to be borne by that value. It is important therefore to understand whether the siteâ€™s
individual development economics, taking into account all direct provision of, or financial contributions for, social
and physical infrastructure, say 30% affordable housing etc can accommodate any predetermined level of
â€œsmaller homesâ€ before becoming unviable. Unless there is already a robust development appraisal
associated with the site, which demonstrates that the scheme can support such a minimum level of provision
(together with all of the other costs) it would be unwise to apply such a requirement.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
there is a shortage of smaller homes, whether affordable or not. mandating smaller homes is essential.
mandating an affordable price is more difficult unless stipulated affordable
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision should be made to protect smaller homes for first time homeowners rather than buy to let
entrepreneurs.
Page 7 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Crowborough Town Council Planning Committee
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Need and demand will alter over the timescale of the policy. It is important that some flexibility is built into the
relevant policies to respond to local needs, so a minimum provision probably wouldn't be appropriate.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We especially need to provide for the young 20 yrs and over.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 629290
Agent ID 629284
Mr & Mrs
Mr
Thomas
Sound
Vine
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whilst achieving a mix of housing is supported in principle by PPS3, the mix of housing required for different
types of household over the plan period will depend on current and future demographic trends and profiles, the
accommodation requirements of specific groups and the diverse range of requirements across the plan area.
Indeed the differing circumstances between the north and the south of the District are referred to in paragraph
3.10 of the consultation document. Any reference to a 20% figure should be a guideline only rather than a firm
requirement. Flexibility is important and the mix of dwelling types and sizes to be provided should be negotiated
on a site by site basis to depend on the overall size of the development proposed, the characteristics of the site
and its locality, and the scale and nature of housing need and demand. For these reasons the Council and NPA
should not be more specific about the percentage of different sizes of 2, 3 and 4 bedroom homes to be provided
nor should developers be asked to provide more than 20% of smaller homes.
Page 8 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631046
Agent ID 333969
Mr
Elliott
Millwood Designer Homes Ltd
Mr
Nightingale
Kember Loudon Williams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The provision of smaller units on any given site should reflect local housing need, and a minimum number should
only be required on a site if that need exists. Any policy needs to be flexible to allow for changing circumstances.
If the need exists then a 20% minimum is preferable. It enables more flexibility to be achieved in the development
to reflect local need and conditions. It will enable schemes to be designed that are most suitable for each site.
MDH objects to a more specific requirement based on numbers of bedrooms. It is inappropriate to try to apply a
standard formula to all sites, particularly bearing in mind the diverse nature of the District. This can also lead to
standardised developments of poor quality. MDH supports the need for family accommodation and smaller family
homes, but there should not be too much emphasis purely on â€˜small homesâ€™. The homes should have a
purpose and meet the actual needs of the community. It should be recognised that â€˜special needs
housingâ€™ is not necessarily small. Very often more floorspace is need to provide facilities to meet the needs of
future occupiers.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Local needs should be met in consultation with the Parish Council. â€œWealden wideâ€ need should only be
met by infill and in urban extensions to towns. Smaller homes are often enlarged after being built which adversely
affects the available housing stock reducing the numbers of affordable homes and the opportunity to downsize.
Once built there needs to be restrictions on these new homes being made larger
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Laughton Parish Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Smaller Homes are essential for individuals and couples starting out on their own. Smaller homes of a different
design and arrangement are also essential for elderley and vulnerable adults who may need some form of on-site
assistance to allow them to remain in their own homes.
Page 9 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Willingdon & Jevington Parish Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Agree - subject to detailed study of housing needs for the specific area of development, rather than generically
across the entire Wealden district.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106786
Agent ID
Mr
Hume
Hillreed Developments Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not for strategic sites for the reasons expalined at Question 1c
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There should be no requirement for a minimum provision of affordable housing because the appropriateness off
provision on all sites depends upon economic viability and there is no guarantee that any particular site could
provide â€ãt leastâ€™ a certain level of affordable housing and remain viable. The councilâ€™s assertion in
paragraph 7.12 of the Submission Core strategy that it has commissioned specialist research on the viability of
housing that shows that â€œthe potential viability of housing sites in the central and northern parts of the District
could support a higher proportion of affordable housing than in most locations in the southâ€ is a significant
generalisation that does not relate to viability, but to overall housing market comparison. To base policy
requirements on â€œpotential viabilityâ€ and on such generalisations cannot be acceptable. In addition there is
no indication in the Wealden Affordable Housing Viability Statement as to the potential effect of additional
requirements for infrastructure provision on individual sites, and the council has not sought in the Core Strategy
to seek to quantify the likely levels of such provision, either collectively or on a site by site basis. Such additional
infrastructure requirements could have a significant effect on the potential achievable level of affordable housing.
The Wealden Affordable Housing Viability Statement itself states (page 11) â€œWith an ambitious but realistic
target in place, the Council would be expected to retain the flexibility to deal with individual schemes where the
specific circumstances justify, on viability grounds, a reduced requirement for affordable housing (and/or an
alternative mix of affordable housing and/or the use of grant if available).â€
Page 10 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This consulation portal format is in my opinion too rigid to allow a meaningful expression of my opinion on the
proposed development in Uckfield. There does not appear to be an opportunity to make comments on any other
matter than the rigid set of narrowly defined questions on the SSDPD. It is therefore in my opinion designed to
prevent full consultation on these matters and is ineffective. As I understand it this SSDPD derives from the Core
Strategy submitted by WDC to the Secretary of State. I am of the opinion that the public consultation on the core
strategy document was ineffective and I am exploring how to raise this matter with the Inspector appointed to
carry out the examination of the Core Strategy submission. With reference to this specific question 1a I strongly
disagree with the premise that a high level of affordable housing should be part of any proposed development in
Uckfield. The argument put forward (in 3.4 of the SSDPD) is that high house prices are driving locals out of the
area to seek lower cost accommodation, and that these individuals are then having to travel long distances into
Uckfield to their place of work. My own experience is the exact opposite of this, I believe the majority of Uckfield
residents work some distance away (having located in Uckfield as house prices are lower than closer to London
and other large urban areas where they are employed). I believe that Uckfield is largely a 'commuter town' and
will remain so in the future. The type and size of any new houses should be driven by the needs of the local
population (which would probably be mid size private family homes), rather than an attempt to engineer a change
in the existing population demographic.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There should be a minimum provision of smaller homes to meet local need in villages in liaison with the Parish
Council. General needs for the whole of Wealden should be met in towns. Homes built under this provision
should remain small and not allowed to be made larger subsequently.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. This would require all sites to be a mixture of small homes alongside average size and larger homes. 2. This
will encourage over-development of all sites to squeeze in the smaller homes. 3. Affordable housing is a
misleading term because no home is affordable to huge numbers of people who do not have the capital for a
deposit or the income to obtain a mortgage. 4.The requirement should be to build more social housing at
affordable rents.
Page 11 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Hallam Land Management Limited
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Establishing a ridged framework in terms of the form, mix, size and tenure of new homes at this early stage could
prejudice the master planning process and whilst careful consideration should be given to form, mix and tenure,
this should be undertaken as part of a comprehensive master planning process, which has been the subject of
public consultation and takes account of the most up to date and relevant evidence and needs assessment for
that particular local area.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Uckfield Town Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
More specific consideration should be given as to what is actually needed rather than set an arbitrary figure for
smaller homes. It is very likely that all developments will need some smaller homes and it is hoped that there
should be some logic to setting a figure for the number and sizes of homes rather than stating a minimum
percentage for all sites. Uckfield has different demographics relating to young people than other towns in
Wealden and consideration should be given as to what communities actually need which may be more or less
than any standard minimum suggested.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Given that the number of smaller homes increases within the town, there should be no need to have the same
percentage of smaller homes on more rural sites, less attractive to families who cannot afford to live in, or travel
from these areas.
Page 12 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631346
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Timms
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree in principle but flexibility is essential as needs will change over a number of years
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sigma Planning Services
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is a need for flexibility to reflect the individual housing market conditions and local character of each site.
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The proposed approach seeks to ensure the provision of affordable housing and smaller homes on key sites. We
consider each of the two elements of this strategy in turn. Concern is raised that no reference is made to the
Councilâ€™s proposed target for the provision of affordable housing. The Submission Core Strategy indicates a
target of the provision of 35% affordable housing on sites of 5 or more dwellings (net) or on sites of 0.2 hectares
or over (WCS8 Affordable Housing). Assuming the Core Strategy is adopted prior to the completion of work on
the Strategic Sites DPD, reference should be made to Policy WCS8 in this section. The Council provide two main
scenarios regarding the provision of smaller homes on key sites in the District. Flexibility will be key in ensuring
the appropriate range of small units be provided on key sites. We do not consider that the level of minimum
provision of smaller homes on all key sites should be increased above the current 20% level. As such therefore
we consider that a requirement of 20% of small homes to be provided on key sites should be included. Please
see Section 3 of the attached statement.
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Arlington Parish Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1(a) In general WDC should ensure a minimum provision of smaller homes on all key sites. However, this should
be flexible to take account of the requirements and character of the location
Page 13 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
The Nevill Estate Company Limited
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Subject to consideration of greater detail
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Jobs in this area are not well paid. A struggle for people to get started.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The minimum provision will make available homes to those in need of all age groups.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We need more countryside and less houses.
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 323155
Agent ID 323152
Ms
Ashton
Wates Developments
Ms Ashton
Judith Ashton Associates
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached
Page 14 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Your reasons as stated.
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We need larger houses that can be adaptable for multi purpose living.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1) Needed for elderly people who may have lost their partners and want to downsize. 2) Couples without children.
3) The growing number of people who choose to live alone.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Tilsmore Nursery Residents Association
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Inflexible
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is important to have types of housing that are needed in a particular area.
Page 15 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Councillor Pritchett
Willingdon Residents Association
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All affordable housing should be put where it is most needed.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631001
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Williams
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree but there has been enough development in and around Hellingly recently.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Great need for smaller homs as so many marriages break up, and young people need places to live.
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Hellingly Parish Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1(a) in general WDC should ensure a minimum provison of smaller homes on all key sites. However, this should
be flexible to take account of the requirements and character of the location
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
A mixture of both - but not on Hindland.
Page 16 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
You cannot, as a Council, demand smaller houses, you are at the mercy of building companies.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 630884
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Saunders
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Suitable housing should be available for single/couples as well as families.
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Ninfield Parish Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We agree Wealden District Council should ensure a minimum provision of smaller homes on all sites to allow for
elderly residents wanting to downsize but remain a home and young people wanting a start-up home in their
community.
Attachment: no
Question 1a
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Stone Cross Nurseries
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
A mix of house sizes helps with local community employment opportunities and spending power. It will stimulat
the housing market for first time buyers.
Page 17 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree that there should be a minimum provision of smaller homes to meet demonstrable and projected need
particularly in the vicinity of the key site and in consulattion with the Parish Council.
Attachment: yes
Question 1a
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Charles Church Southern
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This option is not appropriate for the following reasons: 1 - Paragrpah 3.10 acknowledges that there is a variance
of need across the District and it is therefore inappropriate to impose a blanket %. 2 - There is no justification for
a minimum requirment. 3 - In the case of SDA 12 which is on the edge of Tunbridge Wells, the requirment will be
skewed by the proximity to Tunbridge Wells such that more precise modelling may be required.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The market should dictate this.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 18 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Precise requirements set the envelope within which the developers have to work.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If there must be new building ,however many bedrooms there are, they must be a reasonable size.- with green
space- gardens- no cramming in with no space left for children to play and people to enjoy the outdoors in
summer.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 627465
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Edwards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
For more accurate assessment
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The size of houses to be built can be better matched to suit local requirements, ie young couples, young families,
wage groups, employer requirements.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Different sites even within the same area have different characteristics. The make-up of the housing mix must,
therefore, be precisely matched to each specific site.
Page 19 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No. Using the assumption that a new development should be required to build 30% of affordable homes and 20%
of smaller homes, then the developer should be allowed to build whatever they feel the open market requires and
whatever gives them a fair return on capital
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision of adequate smaller homes is important in planning for the future needs of the ageing population
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Councils need to tell the developers what to do otherwise developers will decide what they think is best. They do
not usually live locally and are not in the best position to make those decisions. Councils are in a better position
to know what is needed in their area
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106749
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
O'Neill
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 20 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There needs to be far more first homes for people. There is a risk that if there are not specific numbers included
then development builders will concentrate on building the most profitable type of dwellings rather than what the
communities and home buyers actually want.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Concerned about the only areas of green fields surrounding Polegate are being built upon...particularly
Hindsland/Morning Mill Farm.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This approach will allow each site to be considered on an individual basis
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The district council in consultation with the Town and Parish Councils should have flexibility to ascertain within
the community the tyoe of housing required on a particular site within the area.
Page 21 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Polegate Town Council comment that each area should be considered with its own needs. Polegate area may be
different from other areas in wealden in their needs for housing.Particularly Polegate area receives many
applications for loft conversions, which is changing the housing stock in the area. Polegate specifically needs
houses that are low cost and affordable housing, including larger low cost houses.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Elderly population require two bedroom homes
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 22 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106709
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Holmes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
the number is relevant to considering objections
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The minimum provision of 20% is crucial to ensure housing for all. However the number should be determined by
councils who know from census returns and other data collection, the exact reuirements for the locality.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 630362
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Robertson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It depends on Wealden's subsidized housing needs and the developer's business viability at the time of
developing a site.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 629287
Agent ID 629284
Mr
Thomas
Servomex Ltd
Mr
Thomas
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 23 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Too inflexible. Each area should be considered with its own needs.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Any housing development should meet the needs of local people, not the needs of migration.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
A must for all projects and areas better to have s,aller units but with a maximum bedroom number limnited to 4
Much more usefull to have specific floor area square meterage quoted - this has been a disaster in Europe
expecting say a two person family tpo live in anything less than 120sq meters of actual room space excluding
halls, stairs and common movement areas.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 24 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 521490
Agent ID 521485
Ms
Smith
WE Vine Trust
Mr
Gillespie
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No. As above. The requirement to deliver a % of affordable housing units should enable the Authority to achieve
the principal objective within which the Authority can negotiate the type (mix) of affordable housing provision. The
Authority is not a â€œhouse builderâ€ and not as sensitive to the siteâ€™s economic circumstances, the
housing market etc as commercial house builders who can only build what they know they can sell. Interference
with the housing mix, beyond the affordable housing quota, would potentially be prejudicial to the siteâ€™s ability
to fund the related social and physical infrastructure sought by the Authority. The balance of the housing
development from any site (beyond the level of affordable provided) has to generate sufficient value to pay for the
section 106 / CIL requirements. Unless the development economics of each site are fully known and can
accommodate a predetermined mix, there is every prospect that development will either stall or be unable to
support the level of social and physical infrastructure etc sought by the Authority.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
to an extent. developers will naturally build in favour of maximal returns. This must be ameliorated while still
allowing them to function as businesses
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Yes based on likely uptake by first time home owners. There is a risk of a development of 5 bedroom premium
houses that are unafordable for most people. Provision should be made to protect smaller homes for first time
homeowners rather than buy to let entrepreneurs.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This option provides the most flexibility for the Council to alter as demand and need change over time. As such, it
is the most appropriate.
Page 25 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Should be a balance of 1.2.3.4. beds, as needed.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 629290
Agent ID 629284
Mr & Mrs
Mr
Thomas
Sound
Vine
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631046
Agent ID 333969
Mr
Elliott
Mr
Nightingale
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The LPA should not be specific about the numbers of each size of unit for each site. This would be far too
prescriptive, and it would prevent the opportunity for sites to meet the changing housing needs of an area over
time. It will also constrain unnecessarily the ability of developers to meet variations in housing demand on a site
by site basis, which in turn will make Wealden less attractive as a location to move to, and will stifle economic
development and growth.
Page 26 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Council must have forecasts of future needs and in consultation with the Parish Council you should be
specific as to types of housing needed. Some small flexibility could be retained by building in a review half way
through the plan period. Once built to meet the forecast need there should be restrictions on making these
homes bigger.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The percentage of diffferent sizes of homes should meet the curent and projected needs of the local population
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
across the entire Wealden district
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106786
Agent ID
Mr
Hume
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
For the reasons explained at question 1C
Page 27 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is not for planning policies that will be in place in the longer term to express the potential future level of
affordable housing need on individual sites; that should be for specific determination at the time of a planning
application. The fact that the Core Strategy itself anticipates that sites will come forward at potentially very
different times over a period up to 2026 (in the case of land in the parish of Frant) means that the actual
requirements for specific housing may well be different later. There is therefore no need for the affordable
housing policies to include reference to specific housing sizes.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I strongly disagree. A typical (unengineered) housing development will contain a ratio of 2,3 and 4 bedroom
houses designed to address the local population needs. No attempt should be made to artificially influence this.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Plan period is long enough to be able to be specific in relation to the percentage of larger homes required
based on forecasts and actual need. Given the Plan period, however, you might wish to retain some small
flexibility to enable a review to take place in the light of changed circumstances. Economic circumstances will
surely improve over the period. There should be restrictions to keep these homes the size they are built.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Disagree because mixed developments are not the right solution for every site.
Page 28 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Some attempt should be made to calculate what is likely to be needed in the future. The preamble states that
â€œThere are a lot of large and expensive houses in Wealden, particularly in the northâ€¦â€ , so as mentioned
some effort should be made to determine the requirements of each site dependent on the requirements of their
communities.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As stated previously each site should be considered on its own merits.
Page 29 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is a need for flexibility to reflect local conditions. These objectives should be expressed in general terms
from which individual sites may be able to depart if justified. Market conditions will vary across the District and
over time. It would be wholly wrong for the Development Plan to seek to impose a particular type or size of
housing at any given time or location. This maybe completely inappropriate to that site or to the then current
market conditions. It is not always the right thing to build predominantly smaller houses. New larger houses can
result in smaller houses becoming available further down the chain. Interference in the operation of the housing
market that is not focused, intelligent and flexible is not good or effective planning.
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1(b) Should WDC be more specific about the percentage of different sizes of 2,3, & 4 bedroom homes that they
are looking for on each site? some councillors think so, but others suggest that the percentages should be
agreed as part of the detailed planning for the sites, rather than predefined at this early stage, which is more
concerned with overall stategy.
Page 30 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Market forces should be relied upon. Developers will seek planning permission for the types of dwelling for whch
there is a demand.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Biggest majority of local homes have been extended.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This will give the council planning authority greater control of each specific development.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As 1a) we need more countryside and less houses.
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 323155
Agent ID 323152
Ms
Ashton
Wates Developments
Ms Ashton
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached
Page 31 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To provide for recruitment and need of all our residents
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Reasons as 3 - 12.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Developers might choose to build detached 4 bedroom houses to sell at a premium price. There should be a
demonstrable need if 3 & 4 bedroom houses are to be built - perhaps more collaboration with P.C.s
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Inflexible
Page 32 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I feel that each area should be considered for it's own particular needs. Polegate needs houses that are
affordable and low cost as not many people earn huge wages/salaries locally, only commuters or people coming
into the area from away/
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Any housing should meet needs of local people.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631001
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Williams
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I feel that you are specific enough
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Set a number for smaller homes.
Page 33 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1(b) Should WDC be more specific about the percentage of different sizes of 2,3, and 4 bedroom homes that they
are looking for on each site? Some councillors think so, but others suggest that the percentages should be
agreed as part of the detailed planning for the sites, rather than predefined at this early stage, which is more
concerned with overall strategy.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But not on Hindland
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 630884
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Saunders
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As question 1a)
Page 34 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
but should be more specific about the percentage of different sizes of 2,3 and 4 bedroom homes and should refer
to town and village plans for guidance as each community has their own specific needs.
Attachment: no
Question 1b
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Each area/site should have a good mix and this will depend on its own position and surroundings. Percentages
need to be a flexible guide rather than fixed but development must be within fixed tolerances to allow better site
layout.
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree that you should be specific in relation to the percentage of larger homes you require based on
demonstrable and projected need in consultation with the Parish Council. However, in view of the length of the
Plan period in the light of changed circumstances. There would need to be restrictions on enlarging homes once
built to this requirement.
Attachment: yes
Question 1b
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This option is not appropriate for the following reasons: 1 - There needs to be recognition of the need for flexibility
to take into account changes in local need; 2 - There is no justification for a special mix requirment. 3 - Site
specific characteristics should also be taken into consideration where for instance small unit/ high density may
not be appropriate.
Page 35 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not if this would compromise the financial viability of the program.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Needs to be linked to improving public transport for commuters to railway stations with integrated bus services.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
re 20 percent of low cost provided by developers- who are the developers?
Page 36 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 627465
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Edwards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Could cause overcrowding
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The percentage of 'affordable housing' is much too small, particularly in the northern part of the area. This
shortage needs to be adddressed.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 103485
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clarke
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No. The current planning requirement to provide 30% of affordable housing over and above the suggested 20%
smaller homes requirement would account for 50 % of any new development, which in our view correctly reflects
the demographic requirement
Page 37 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision of adequate numbers of smaller homes is really important for small fragmented families and for the
elderly
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
20% small homes would not be enough for adequate provision for smaller family units so developers need to be
told what to provide
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106749
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
O'Neill
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The area requires smaller affordable starter homes for first time buyers.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 38 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Each site should be considered on an individual basis
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The District Council in consultation with the Town and Parish Councils should not stipulate a percentage. When
taking into consideration the number of affordable homes to be built, the requirements of any particular site within
a parish area should be determined by local need and thus give full flexibility to that particular Town & Parish
Council.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Care must be taken not to overload areas with affordable housing to the detriment of the value of people buying
their homes. The proportion of affordable housing will vary depending on the positioning of the development.
Essentially, the greater the dependence on the provision of own transport the smaller the percentage of
affordable housing
Page 39 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106709
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Holmes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
depends on the number of houses
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If 'we' means parish/town/wealden councils then I agree. These bodies have the demographic facts and figures
and expected trends for the locality so it can only be these elected bodies who can decide this. These decisions
should not be made by the developers who do not necessarily have the same aspirations/vision or interest in the
area.
Page 40 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 630362
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Robertson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No idea without more detailed demographic information and economic development plans. (Background docs
give current facts but no indication of strategy or targets and how to achieve them.)
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 629287
Agent ID 629284
Mr
Thomas
Servomex Ltd
Mr
Thomas
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The older generation need to be able to downsize if necessary and young people need to be able to have a foot
on the housing ladder.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This follows on from the above and this number should be around 30%. if the builders think this is unrealistic tough.
Page 41 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 1c
Person ID 521490
Agent ID 521485
Ms
Smith
WE Vine Trust
Mr
Gillespie
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No. As before. The requirement to deliver a % of affordable housing units should enable the Authority to achieve
the principal objective within which the Authority can negotiate the type (mix) of affordable housing provision. The
Authority is not a â€œhouse builderâ€ and not as sensitive to the siteâ€™s economic circumstances, the
housing market etc as commercial house builders who can only build what they know they can sell. Interference
with the housing mix, beyond the affordable housing quota, would potentially be prejudicial to the siteâ€™s ability
to fund the related social and physical infrastructure sought by the Authority. The balance of the housing
development from any site (beyond the level of affordable provided) has to generate sufficient value to pay for the
section 106 / CIL requirements. Unless the development economics of each site are fully known and can
accommodate a predetermined mix, there is every prospect that development will either stall or be unable to
support the level of social and physical infrastructure etc sought by the Authority.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
we need smaller homes. surely this is in the interests of the builders as well?
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is wrong to simply puck a figure out of the air. A proper balance of homes should be provided based on need
rather than on what is most profitable for the developer.
Page 42 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There would be little flexibility in this option and it would not be appropriate in a district this diverse, where need
and demand could change significantly across the district and over time.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 630891
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Hartle
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whenever a development is built it always seems to be large multi-roomed houses. Smaller houses are needed
as wages are not in line with house prices
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
30%
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 629290
Agent ID 629284
Mr & Mrs
Mr
Thomas
Sound
Vine
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 43 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631046
Agent ID 333969
Mr
Elliott
Mr
Nightingale
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Developers should not be required to provide more than 20% smaller homes on key sites as this would result in
unbalanced developments that did not meet the wider needs of the community. Policy needs to take into account
that some development, particularly in and near town centres, will comprise 100% smaller homes, allowing
greater flexibility on other sites.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Developers should be required to provide more than 20% of smaller homes should there be a need in a particular
area. Separate types and sizes of homes should be fully integrated on the site.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The percentage of smaller homes provided should be in line with an up to date local housing needs survey
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
across the entire Wealden district
Page 44 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106786
Agent ID
Mr
Hume
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Hillreed do not agree with this comment as greater flexibility should be provided to housebuilders in the Low
Weald areas particularly where the influence of the Eastborne housing market which contains a large amount of
apartments and smaller accommodation is stronger such as Hailsham. The housebuilder particularly in the
current economic climate must be assured there is a market for the housing product. Hillreed would favour the
omission of targets and for large strategic sites that the housing mix is assessed on a site by site basis through
negotiation and supporting justification from the applicant.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
For the same reason there is no planning policy justification for seeking specific housing mixes on individual sites
when this is a matter that it is far more appropriate to consider through the planning application process.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With regards to Uckfield it seems likely that highest demand will be for 3 and 4 bedroom houses.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are told this Plan is to provide homes to meet a need and developers should provide more than 20% of
smaller homes should there be that need on a particular site. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the build of
separate types of homes are fully integrated on the site.
Page 45 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Acceptable only if this includes homes that will be available to rent that will be managed by the local authority or a
housing association.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As mentioned, some logic and science has to be the background for setting a figure for housing provision and
this should be based on what communities need. The needs of one community will be different to another so an
universal figure should not be implemented for all the communities as their requirements will be different.
Page 46 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If the key site is within an area containing more than 20% small houses, it would be fair to request the percentage
on any new development be similar
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is no evidence to support the imposition of size and space standards. The provision of housing should be
led by the market - as identified in the SHMA - rather than imposed by proscriptive planning policy.
Attachment: yes
Question 1c
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 47 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1c
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Others say the percentage should be flexible to take account of the various factors specific to each site.
(Whatever is provided needs to be linked to improving public transport for commuters e.g. with integrated bus
services to railway stations
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Need starter homes.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Greater than 20% could unbalance the social mix that seems so popular these days with any development
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
as 1a and ab
Page 48 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1c
Person ID 323155
Agent ID 323152
Ms
Ashton
Wates Developments
Ms Ashton
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To ensure meet needs of single, either aging population or youngsters starting
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The total of affordable and smaller homes figures should total no more than 20%.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
For the reasons given to Question 1a - however the smaller units should be well-integrated with the other housing
stock and again where there is a demonstrable need.
Page 49 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Inflexible
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There are already a number of smaller properties on the market eg 2 bedroom bungalows, flats so 20% would
seem a fair proportion of smaller homes.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Subject to detailed study of local needs and so the elderly can downsize if they need to and young people can
get a foot on the housing ladder.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631001
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Williams
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
First time buyers and retired need smaller homes.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If this can be done in conjunction with affordable/social housing/shared ownership etc.
Page 50 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1c
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1(c) Should WDC ask developers to provide more than 20% of smaller homes on the key sites? Some say yes: In
fact, some say there should be a higher percentage than 20% low cost housing. Others say the percentage
should be flexible to take account of the various factors specific to each site.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But not on Hindland.
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Why not ask them to build eco homes, but that's less profit for them!
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 630884
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Saunders
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
So they don't just become housing estates for families
Attachment: no
Question 1c
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But not much more than 20% as this could stifle development.
Page 51 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1c
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree that you should ask developers to provide more than 20% of smaller homes should there be a need on a
particular site. Care needs to be taken to ensure that the build of seperate types of homes are fully integrated on
the site.
Attachment: yes
Question 1c
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is not appropriate to seek more than 20% smaller homes mix on key sites. Small dwellings are defined as 1 and
2 bedroomed properties: 1 bedroomed properties should be omitted because they are generally acknowledged
as being relatively expensive, poor value for money and unpopular in marketing terms but also reduce the
viability of a development. A greater percentage of small dwellings would be disproportionate with no justification
for that level of need.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Mobile homes on farms and on some other sites are perfectly good homes for eg single people who are working
on that location or nearby and have dogs etc and are single. It should be easier to provide this sort of
accommodation where it does not intrude on the landscape and can be provided with water electricity sewerage
using green technologies.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 52 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The answer to Q 1a says it all.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Consideration to the existing local communities should be taken into consideration. How these new houses will
affect the local infrastructure and existing communities. More information should generally be given. Totally
opposed to the building of 700 houses on the Hindsland/Morning Mill Farm fields. These fields are extremely
important to local people who use these fields for exercise, walking their dogs etc and building such a large
number of houses on this site would seriously encroach on the infrastructure of Polegate.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 629201
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Sweeney
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
My comment is exactly the same as my answer to Question 1a above. No more development of existing green
sites should be permitted until all other options are genuinely explored and fully exploited. Otherwise the only
advantage will be to the developers, and to the detriment of existing residents.
Page 53 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is felt too rigid a policy to start using percentages to be applied 'across the board' as the requirements in the
town & parish areas across Wealden will differ in the 'need' for a particular type of housing. The Parish Council
experiences the need for local residents living in larger properties to downsize to smaller houses or bungalows,
thus being able to remain in the area. Young people growing up in the area also have a need for affordable
housing to get a foot on the housing ladder. People living in other areas, with local connections, also have a very
limited choice of property with which to return to the area.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 324327
Agent ID 324285
Mr
Tomlinson
Heyford Developments Ltd
Mr
Hester
VLH Associates
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If the council wants to have a fixed or minimum percentage of smaller homes on the SDA 2 Sites, it should also
accept that smaller homes equals smaller households, which should mean that there will be less waste water
going to the North Hailsham Waste Water Treatment Works per house than currently calculated by the Council
and Southern Water. Southern Water's calculations are based upon each house using some 500 litres per day.
This is based upon 5 people in the household. A smaller household uses fewer litres per house per day. The
more the number of smaller homes the more the increase in the number of homes in the SDA 2 Sites that could
be accommodated before the Waste Water Treatment Works reaches capacity.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Wealden needs to be more specific regarding "smaller" homes; are these smaller size relating to 1 bedroom/2
bedroom properties. The Town Council wishes to add that all properties should be within a reasonable affordable
budget.
Page 54 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The nearer to town centres and easily accessible transport the higher the proportion of affordable housing to a
maximum of 30%
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There seems to be a need for homes for first time buyers but would add that if smaller homes are built then
adequate Parking is included in the plans. Most homes have two cars - not 1 and 1/2.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Bearing in mid car parking issues should developers be encouraged to include small blocks of well defined flats
within their developments, thus a larger development would comprise flats, terraced houses, semi detached
houses and stand alone properties.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 55 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 630362
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Robertson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
First-time buyers need employment in the local area. Generation of such opportunities must remain the top
priority in any Wealden development. A push to raise skill levels and to improve educational standards would
attract investors. Provision of commercial space is not the only requirement for economic development.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 629287
Agent ID 629284
Mr
Thomas
Servomex Ltd
Mr
Thomas
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Smaller homes should be available for single people, widowed people or young people trying to get a foot on the
property ladder or small homes at an affordable rent for the same groups of people in greatest need.
Page 56 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision of parking for at lease one car per property is essential for three bedrom or larger this must be
increased.
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 521490
Agent ID 521485
Ms
Smith
WE Vine Trust
Mr
Gillespie
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Trust is seriously concerned that the development economics associated with each of the key sites has not
be sufficiently understood to demonstrate that the infrastructure requirements together with affordable housing
can be met without funding gaps, stalled delivery or the potential for public finance to support infrastructure
provision. The Trust believes that as a consequence it is premature to introduce further prescriptive requirements
which have a direct economic effect upon the financial viability of the sites and their ability to pay for infrastructure
and affordable housing.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
many of the smaller homes in the new development on the Eastbourne Road (Fernley Park) have been
purchased by buy to let entrepreneurs who rent them out. This does not help people get on the property ladder.
There is also a need for medium sized 3 and 4 bedroom family houses.
Page 57 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision of homes on any site should be subject to detailed study of housing need for the specific area of
development.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 631046
Agent ID 333969
Mr
Elliott
Mr
Nightingale
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This section of the DPD also refers to the provision of affordable housing. Para 3.1 refers to the provision of
9,600 new homes in total over the District as set out in the Core Strategy. This number is too low and will not
meet the housing needs of the District. Paragraph 3.8 states that, â€œaffordable housing is provided by local
authorities and housing associationsâ€¦â€ . This statement is fundamentally wrong because it completely
ignores the role of the housing development industry in delivering affordable housing. This section should
properly recognise the factors that affect the amount of affordable housing that can be achieved on any given site
at any particular point in time. These factors go beyond the value of the land and the facilities a developer may
need to provide. They include, for example, the strength of the local housing market and the availability of grant,
subsidy or investment from an RP.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We believe that there needs to be a far greater emphasis on providing the right type of accommodation for the
elderley and vulnerable adults in any large housing development. The aim must be to provide suitable
accommodation for this growing sector of our population to enable them to remain in their own homes for as long
as possible. This will improve their quality of life, enable larger family homes to be released back into the market
and reduce the burden on the state. This will in turn reduce the requirment to build new large family homes on
greenfield sites.
Page 58 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In an overall sense therefore there is no justification for a more specific approach to the provision of affordable
housing through the Core Strategy, and a general policy defining an overall level of affordable requirement, with a
provision that the final level is a matter for individual circumstances at the time of detailed proposals for
development, is sufficient at this stage. The provision of affordable housing is essentially linked to need and
viability and these are key considerations. In determining the most appropriate locations and numbers of
affordable housing units that will come forward as part of the Strategic Sites DPD there is no justification to seek
to adjust the provision on a site by site basis. That would potentially prevent sites coming forward at an
appropriate time and lead to delays in delivery of housing. The very high level of housing need that the council
has identified will not be met by the level of housing provision required and the sites allocated in the SSDPD will
in any case fall very significantly short of meeting housing requirements. It is therefore essential that there should
be no â€˜brakeâ€™ on delivery. A provision of 35% should be carried forward, with confirmation that actual final
levels of affordable housing will depend upon detailed individual consideration of sites. That will provide a
necessary element of certainty whilst allowing flexibility through negotiations in relation to specific sites that may
allow for a greater (or lesser) provision depending on economic viability and other contributions that may be
sought. It is considered that this should be the same for all sites within the DPD as it sets a baseline that can be
adjusted as required whilst providing a level of certainty that will contribute to bringing sites, and affordable
housing, forward.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The SSDPD does not appear to consider the issues already faced by the EXISITING local community in Uckfield.
The infrastructure of the town is already overburdened. The addition of 1,000 new houses will exacerbate an
already poor situation. Examples of this are :- Water supply and drainage : It is a fact that water supply is
restricted (with a potential drought order already mentioned for Uckfield area this Summer). Road infrastructure :
The town is gridlocked every morning and evening. Access roads to/from A22 are already overloaded. I
understand that the traffic survey carried out was during school holidays which is the only time when traffic is
lighter in the town centre - a more representative survey is needed before any valid view can be taken on the
town's road infrastructure capability to accommodate the additional traffic that would be introduced by the new
development. Rail infrastructure : Uckfield trains are standing room only every morning and evening. A number of
commuters drive from Uckfield to Crowborough each morning to catch the train coming into Uckfield in order to
have a seat from Uckfield to London. This serves to demonstrate how bad the current problem is. Additional
passengers from the new development would make a bad situation worse still. Health services : these are
already considerably overstretched at Uckfield Hospital.
Page 59 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is a clear need and that need should be met through these proposals on the appropriate sites
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The fixation on smaller homes is a mistake since these dwellings can only be lived in by single people or couples
for a short time. Families need affordable homes that are large enough to contain a family, not a matchbox that
they will have to move from within too short a time, or where they will suffer overcrowding as children are born.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To ensure that the plan is robust and responsive to local circumstances, the plan needs to retain a reasonable
degree of flexibility and therefore whilst the issues raised in Section 3 are extremely important, setting specific
district-wide requirements is not an appropriate way to respond. Indeed, the Plan itself highlights the differences
between North and South Wealden and in planning the SDAâ€™s all of those involved need to be alive to those
differences and indeed differences at a more local level. The application of stringent requirements will render the
master planning process to no more than a tick box exercise.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 60 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
None of the questions make any specific reference to affordable homes although it is implied in the short
preamble. Whilst the consultation is for the major sites, the statement regarding the amount of affordable housing
possible sometimes being dependent on infrastructure and facilities that may be provided, is telling. The Town
Council feels that affordable housing should be integral in the development, but to try and be flexible Wealden
should make a statement that some smaller homes and affordable housing provision could be made off site on
smaller local areas of land not necessarily adjacent to the Strategic Development Area. As mentioned with
Uckfield having a greater need than other towns for smaller and affordable housing, every effort should be made
to help resolve an increasingly severe issue and the provision of allowing smaller sites to be developed for small
and affordable homes would be a positive addition to the overall strategy.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
PPS3 and the draft NPPF require new housing to meet all need and demand. Government policy is not selective
and such matters should be left to the judgement of house-builders, who are continually assessing and judging
market demand.
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 61 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1(d) Other comments regarding WDC's approach to the provision of smallerhomes in the District: there should be
flexibility in the type of small home provided, and perhaps a % percetage approach specific to each site would be
appropriate
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is a great shame that we have so many Housing Association houses. Council houses were a great provision.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Properties for older persons should be grouped together rather than intermixed too much (giving some peace
and tranquility)
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 323155
Agent ID 323152
Ms
Ashton
Wates Developments
Ms Ashton
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached
Page 62 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Room size is important, not necessarily number of rooms. 40% should be affordable and remain so for future
generations.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Smaller homes should be scattered amongst the larger dwellings, as should the 'affordable' homes.
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
A proportion 'should be built within' the smaller villages where there is a need, i.e. agricultural workers, grown-up
children who wish to stay in the vicinity. They should not be built as second homes for the wealthy. There is a
need for council houses to replace those sold off. Also coouncil have more control over tenancy than some
'housing associations'.
Page 63 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Having attended the Inspector's hearings Jan - Feb 2nd I am not persuaded that current projections of need will
apply when final decisions are determined.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It would be good if small bungalows, maybe terraced, could be considered, with small gardens, as many older
people have pets and in so many places they are not allowed pets and there are no gardens, which they do like,
especially if they are used to having one. This may help people in 3 bedroomed council housing association
properties who would downsize if such a choice was available. Farmlands Way, Willingdon is an excellent
example of such accommodation.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision of homes on any site should be subject to detailed study of housing needs for each development area.
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1(d) Other comments regarding WDC's approach to the provision of smaller homes in the District: there sould be
flexibility in the type of small home provided, and perhaps a 0% percentage approach specific to each site would
be appropriate
Page 64 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not on Hindland.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The approach and lack of info from Wealden, is mind-blowing! Your web-site is difficult to work, the language you
use is too complex for older people.
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In addition, the percentage of smaller homes per development should be linked to town/village plans as tjos os
imoqie tp each community.
Attachment: no
Question 1d
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Once decided upon percentage of smaller homes must apply to all future sites in Wealden.
Page 65 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 1d
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is innappropriate to be prescriptive in terms of mix particularly in the current economic climate where additional
constraints are imposed on those seeking a new home by the finanical institutions.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Representation ID 1
Person ID 103771
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All the areas seem to suggest major new developments which roads, transport, schools etc may not be able to
support. I cannot find it amongst the mass of paperwork but are we allowing for small "pepper pot" developments
within existing areas of habitation which could be encouraged without covering green areas with more houses?
As a small example we live in Brambletye Lane, Forest Row which consists of 8 buildings (providing homes for
11 families).With no real detriment to the AONB or nuisance to existing residents, a further 5 buildings could
probably be built in what are natural well spaced plots along the length of the lane - if planning permission were
to be given. However much nonsense has been quoted in the past re traffic accessing the A22 at the same time
as a blind eye is turned to the ever increasing commercial activities which generate much traffic to and from the
caravan site now called Brambletye Fruit Farm. I have never applied for planning permission but I might consider
allowing a tasteful development in the paddock and orchard laying to the West of Grayling House. It would be
virtually invisible to other residents or anyone walking down the lane What I am trying to suggest is that Wealden
District Council should indicate in the paper that a much more sympathetic response should be given to proposed
"pepper pot" (doubtless there is a better name for it ) developments that are in keeping with the surroundings and
can reduce the need for so many new urban areas in a beautiful part of England
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Yes, for larger development projects, particularly those that build on greenfield sites, but could make smaller,
sustainable projects less economically viable.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 66 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Why does there have to be a general guiding strategy that assumes more development as inevitable eating up
our green space anyway? Why does it have to involve large volume estates?
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree with the basic concept of the CIL but I feel that it is too open to interpretetion and manipulation by
developers who will, undoubtedly, aim to get away with as small a levy as possible. Thus the local councils, and
consequently existing residents, will have to bear the largest part of the burden of provision of necessary
infrastructure. Burning issues such as medical, education and water must not be swept under the carpet. It would
seem fair that a developer should bear at least 50% of any notional costs involved. In any case the actual levy for
a particular site should be precisely and realisticaly stated. Why should existing residents have to pay through the
nose for the privilege of being inconvenienced in so many ways?
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 67 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106749
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
O'Neill
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is a need to ensure that any new development is sustainable, integrates with the existing communities and
supports existing services
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Section 106/ CIL Contributions are an important area of new development. The funds must remain in the area to
which they relate and not be used to fund schemes elsewhere in the district
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is essential that a percentage is given to the local town and parish council to use for the 'benefit of the
community'. There are many little projects that would benefit a community and, for a small Parish Council with
limited funding, these could be met out of income derived from CILs, which otherwise would have to be raised by
imposing unacceptable increases on the annual precept.
Page 68 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Insuficient information available on the guiding priciples in the document. Request for further information.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The visible results within the affected community of "Section 106/ CIL Contributions" are an important area of any
new development. The funds must remain in the area to which they relate and not be used to fund schemes
elsewhere in the district, the word "visible" is important. ie WDC constructed this playing field with funds from XYZ
development.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 629943
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ive
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is a need for affordable housing but the present facilities cannot sustain housing growth with doctors at
capacity and service at breaking point . The structure has to be in place before such projects are approved
Page 69 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The guiding principles as set out are comprehensive but not necessarily detailed- I guess they vary from one site
to another. However, it is commendable to have these principles on which to base any future decisions.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The infrastructure should be in place before any development is commenced and there should be a levy lodged
with the Council by developers for futurfe infrastructure and future community projects.
Page 70 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Totally agree but for all new sites the schools, medical services, transport roads, conservation measures and
recreation areas must be defined before any project starts with the schools - all types, medical services and
recreational areas to be inplace and ready to start work before the first house of any kind is occupied.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Mitigating the impact and requirements of local residents should be addressed as the priority.
Page 71 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Infrastructure needed should be provided at the time and not years later, if at all, as has happened in the past.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Infrastrusture has to be put in place at the same time as the development, not as an after-thought.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Agree - subject to CIL contributions being secured prior to any development starting, and CIL contributions being
'ring-fenced' for provision of infrastructure in the development area for which the contribution relates
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106786
Agent ID
Mr
Hume
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Taking account of the relevant test set out at Paragraph B5 of Circular 5/2005.
Page 72 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision of infrastructure under Section 106 agreements or under CIL should be timely unlike the development
off Wannock Avenue in Willingdon where traffic calming has never been provided despite planning conditions
and the legal agreement entered into by the developer and not enforced by the County and District Councils. This
gives little confidence to the general public that infrastructure will be properly provided. Questions by councillors
show there is a considerable sum of near Â£6 million collected by the District Council in their Section 106
account which apparently has not so far been spent. There is very little confidence that the New Homes Bonus
provided by the Government will be spent locally where the homes are to be built.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There can be no real disagreement that with development will come new infrastructure requirements which will
need to be funded. The acknowledgement that some of the required provision could be provided off site is
welcomed as this will ensure that the all the necessary infrastructure will be provided and not pared down to only
accommodate provision on site.
Page 73 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The impact of development on any area, and in particular Hellingly, which is a small village, ill equiped to deal
with developmental impact, needs careful consideration of infrastucture requirements.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106357
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Adams
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Where's the beef? The examination in public of the CS only began to explore the issues. Wealden's councillors
have decided to respond to NewLabour' s RS by allocating big chunks of housing without the ability of either the
LEA or the transionary NHS to provide for the new residents. What is the CIL ? Is it a per unit alloction that
applies to a plot subdivision as well as a massive SDA which knocks local services sideways. S106 agreements
will always be needed, how else will there be provision for a badly needed GP Practice in a large SDA site but
what is the mechanism that secures the serviced land and retains it for the community and gets it built whilst
handing it over to a totally privatised GP practice? What is the mechanism that solves the issue of an LEA which
does not wish to over provide whilst the government stresses the importance of continual house building ( the
LEA's response then, is reactive rather than proactive !!!! ).
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This will be a statutory requirement.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
KKH Banner Life Interest Settlement
Mr
Barker
Evolution Town Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Agree if fairly and reasonably related to the development in scale and kind.
Page 74 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Subject to consideration of the detail
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Too much emphasis on traffic to A2270
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Developers need to make contributions as much infrastructure is sadly lacking in the area (and should in fact be
the first priority in many areas)
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We don't want any building.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I would like to see CIL used to provide local community halls and cultural opportunities - e.g. library update,
cultural art, drama shows.
Page 75 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All infrastructure should be in place before development proceeds.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We need to know how much each house will have to pay for this. How do you arrive at a sum?
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
A new community needs infrastructure 'in place' if it is to thrive and become a living community. The developer
should build required infrastructure in a timely fashion. After the houses are built is too late and there have been
instances where the developer has renegued.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I don't understand what this is and how it will work.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I do not feel I have enough information to comment.
Page 76 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Any developers levy should be put up front and ring fenced for the infrastructure.
Attachment: yes
Question 2a
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
2(a) Community Infrastructure Levy - agree but would not to wish this to be at the expense of funding local
infrastructure improvements. Funds raised for Strategic Infrastructure should be spent in the vicinity of the new
deelopment andnot used on a District wide basis
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please explain what you mean.
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
What do you mean? please explain.
Page 77 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2a
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All major decelopent should contribute to development of infrastructure in the communities impacted by the
development. Any development will include family homes and therefore an increase in children attending schools.
This appears to be considered with any major development, but what about small developments especially in
reual villages? The knock on effect of development on local infrasturcture is significant
Attachment: no
Question 2a
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But could this be offset by the retention and provision of employment?
Attachment: yes
Question 2a
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree but I would emphasise the need for timely and appropriate infrastructure to be provided whether it be
under Section 106 agreements or under CIL. Past events give little comfort to my constituents when they see the
development off Wannock Avenue in Willingdon where traffic claming to protect our children using the primary
school has never been provided depsite planning conditions and the legal agreement eneterd into by the
developer and not enforced by the County and District Councils. It is noted that there is a considerable sum of
near Â£6 million collected by your council in their Section 106 account which apparently has not so far been
spent. I would also like assurances that the "New Homes Bonus" arrangemtns provided by the Government will
be spent to benefit my constituents - those directly affected by your proposals.
Page 78 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2a
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Natural England fully supports the inlcusion of green infrastructure into all proposals to be incorporated into the
community infrastructure levy. This could be a key tool to aid the Council's overarching core strategy objective of
creating functional habitat networks. We also support that childrens playspace and leisure and recreation forms
part of this as, if well designed, this can provide valuable access to nature with well documented health and
wellbeing benefits.
Attachment: yes
Question 2a
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Support for the introduction of CIL, which will find strategic infrastructure provision as well as the enhancement of
neccessary social, community and green infrastructure provision.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 79 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
At present we have one Doctors surgery at the top of the High Street (Station Road) and one at the other end
(Lewes Road) the Downlands Medical Centre have approx 9500 patients. We have one NHS dentist and one
private. We have a two form entry infant and primary school catering for approx 400 pupils and is full to capacity.
We have one preschool, also working to capacity. Polegate has been identified as being under par with leisure
space. We have three play parks and two recreation grounds, but we are still under our correct recommendation
for open space. I am not sure what the drainage system is like but unless more work is done to ensure that
sewerage and water is available to all properties not withstanding any proposed new builds there could
potentially be a problem in the future. Our roads are very busy and whilst we have good links by bus and train or
roads are heavily used by cars and lorries, this causes damage to the roads, emmisions and difficulty to travel
short distances. The Cophall Roundabout has only compounded the problem as drivers use parts of Polegate as
a rat run to avoid using it. Commuters decend upon Polegate's residential areas for 12 hours a day to avoid car
park charges at the station, this causes problems with access, visitors and obstruction. If houses are built on the
outskirts of Polegate the problem will get worse.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The development that has already occurred has put pressure on community infrastructure already- huge queues
at DGH for medical services and water shortages, traffic problems , school places and so on. No so called
development should take place unless provision is already adequate instead of under pressure for existing users.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 627465
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Edwards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Authorities need to be clear about preserving areas of outstanding natural beauty
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 80 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106749
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
O'Neill
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 81 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Green Infrastructure should provide corridors to link with other areas. Play/recreation must be provided.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In all developments there must be an acceptable level of 'green' or open recreational space. Developments not
only require a mixture of types of housing, but must incorporate adequate green space for parkland, recreational,
or sporting activity, which also enhances the overall environment and encourages community involvement.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Insufficient information in the documentation. Request for further information.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 82 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Green areas are crucial to the community.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In 2012 it would be nice to see a developer of his or her own volition insist on a grove of 60 traditional English
trees in their development. I also believe that one broad leaved traditional english tree per dwelling constructed
should form part of the planning requirement.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The requirement that Developers will have boundaries and expectations and requirements to adhere to, is good.
however, past experience in the area has demonstrated that Developers can also renege on these expectations.
So the contract between Council and Developers needs to have penalties placed on them if they do not fulfil the
expectations.
Page 83 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 630362
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Robertson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The background document gives what sounds to be an acceptabl theory. If it is actioned, fine - but will it be?
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is essential that sufficient recreation and amenity space is made available for the quality of life of present and
future generations.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is not possible to design a green infrastucture reliant on individual house owners. This can be achieved better
with larger scale open areas starting with two hectare open spaces but better still with treble this size. - not only
for rceognised organised saport but open parkland. Such areas to be pert of school playing areas that can be
open to the public at the weekends.
Page 84 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
rural east sussex would be a lovely thing to preserve in the drive for new homes. some accomodation of the
character of our county must be kept.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Mitigating the impact and requirements of local residents should be addressed as the priority.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The â€œlong viewâ€ in green and open areas proposed for development is particularly valuable to existing
residents if not to planning officers. This is mostly lost when development takes place and particular care should
be taken to ensure that is retained on right of ways and other locations in development sites.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Leisure and recreational facilities are essential to our well-being
Page 85 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
agree - subject to meeting Government guidelines relating to the minimum requirments for recreational and
amenity space
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Long views are often lost when development takes place despite it being very valuable to the well being of
existing residents. It is important those views are retained particularly on rights of way and open green areas.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 86 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Again there can be no real disagreement with the general principle, but there should be some mention that
existing habitats should be protected in addition to habitat enhancement.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Areas of green infrastucture should be retained and enhanced where possible.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To provide a high quality environment and access to recreational facilities but subject to requirements being
reasonably related to the development concerned.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
Mr
Barker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Local needs for informal recreation shouldguide the site allocations process.
Page 87 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To keep it green would be to leave it.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Developers need to provide amenities as part of the package for a comprehensive development
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We have too few plants/animals as it is.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Playspace needs to be relevant to local community and well landscaped. Not look bleak as at Jarvis Brook rec!
Page 88 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Should be in place before commencing building houses.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But not tneough open space, on large site create a community garden/farm.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is important particularly 'safe playing areas' for children and provision for sporting activities for all ages.
However, we are not an inner city area and we do have easy access to the countryside.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I am not persuaded that the principles are implementable or sustainable so are unsound.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 89 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Should meet Government guidelines relating to the minimum requirements for recreation and amenity space.
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Anything to retain existing hedges/tress and green areas should be done. Ensure replanting/hedging is done
before developers leave the site.
Attachment: yes
Question 2b
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
2(b) Green Infrastructure - agree it is essential however that where new play space and facilities are provided
monies are secured to mitigate future maintenance costs
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 90 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2b
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
East Sussex County Council
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Green Infrastructure (GI). The section 4.5 on GI could usefully provide a broader definition of GI and pick up
some of the points which are made very well regarding opportunities for GI later in the document on a site by site
basis. The wording in this section suggests GI is primarily about the creation of new leisure and recreational
facilities where it should emphasise the need to map and manage the existing resource in the context of the
definition from The Natural Environment White Paper. â€˜The Natural Choiceâ€™ HM govt. June 2011, Page 31.
This could also be better reflected in the Core Strategic Sites Context Plan for each settlement. For example; the
Uckfield SDA1: Fig 1 indicates two â€˜Green Infrastructure Potentialâ€™ links in to the SDA. There is recognition
that these details will be picked up in the GI Strategy for the district but some simple initial mapping and
supporting text in this document would reinforce that and set the scene for each potential new settlement area.
Attachment: yes
Question 2b
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We agree to the creation of green inftastrusture with major development, but think this should also include area
for community cultivation (i.e. allotments and shared garden space)
Attachment: no
Question 2b
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All sites should be assessed on the ability to provide this.
Attachment: yes
Question 2b
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree. I would add that care needs to be taken to ensure the long view is kept. This is often lost when
development takes place and I am particularly keen that the long views to and from Willingdon Levels and the
National Park currently enjoyed by my Consituents are not lost.
Page 91 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2b
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Natural Engalnd fully supports the inlcusion of green infrastructure into all proposals to be incorporated into the
community infrastructure levy. This could be a key tool to aid the Council's overarching core strategy objective of
creating functional habitat networks. We also support that childrens playspace and leisure and recreation forms
part of this as, if well designed, this can provide valuable access to nature with well documented health and
wellbeing benefits.
Attachment: yes
Question 2b
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Support for the provision of green infrastructure, the provision of leisure and recreational facilities and landscaoe
and habitat enhacements on site where these relate to the specific characteristics of and needs generated by
development proposals. However, with the introduction of CIL mechanisms must be put in place to avoid 'double
counting' with allowances made for provision on-site in lieu of further CIL contributions.
Page 92 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2b
Person ID 104794
Agent ID
Ms
Henderson
The Woodland Trust
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Trust is pleased to see green infrastructure included but would like to see trees and woodland cited as a key
element of the Wealden District Council DPD General Guiding Principles relating to Green Infrastructure . The
Case for Trees (Forestry Commission, July 2010) states: â€˜There is no doubt that we need to encourage
increased planting across the country â€“ to help meet carbon targets â€“ and every tree can count towards
those targets as part of a renewed national effort to increase the countryâ€™s overall woodland canopy. But it's
not all about carbon; there is a growing realisation among academics about the important role trees play in our
urban as well as the rural environment. It has long been accepted and confirmed by numerous studies that trees
absorb pollutants in our cities with measurable benefits to peopleâ€™s health â€“ such as reducing asthma
levels. Yet trees also deliver a whole host of other extraordinary economic, environmental and social
benefits.â€™ The report goes on to say: â€˜The development of the space in which we live and work represents
an opportunity for change that may not be repeated for many years. Making the right decisions at these pivotal
moments can influence peoplesâ€™ sense of place, health and wellbeing for generations.â€™ The Woodland
Trust believes that woodland creation is especially important for green infrastructure provision because of the
unique ability of woodland to deliver across a wide range of benefits â€“ see our publication Woodland Creation
â€“ why it matters (http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/en/about-us/publications/Pages/ours.aspx). These include for
both landscape and biodiversity (helping habitats become more robust to adapt to climate change, buffering and
extending fragmented ancient woodland), for quality of life and climate change (amenity & recreation, public
health, flood amelioration, urban cooling) and for the local economy (timber and woodfuel markets). In a recent
letter to all Local Authorities calling for support for the Governmentâ€™s National Tree Planting Campaign, The
Environment Minister Caroline Spelman has extolled the many virtues of trees: â€˜Trees offer so many benefits
to our citizens. They capture carbon and hold soils together, prevent flooding and help control our climate. They
also add immeasurably to our quality of life by making areas more attractive and healthier places to live. In recent
years the number of trees being planted annually across the country has declined, and could decrease further,
unless action is taken to reverse this trendâ€™ (letter to all Local Authorities, 12th November 2010). A recent
publication The Case For Trees in development and the urban environment (Forestry Commission, July 2010
sets out â€˜The multiple value of trees for people and places â€“ increasing greenspace and tree numbers is
likely to remain one of the most effective tools for making urban areas more convivialâ€™, and lists those
benefits (on p.10) as: Climate change, contributions, Environment advantages, Economic dividends, Social
benefits.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 93 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Maintenance of unimproved, native, flower-rich grassland with appropriate, ongoing management is also very
important. Regarding 15m landscape buffers to protect ancient woodland, this is not sufficient. Ancient woodland
near residential areas needs high fencing and limited pedestrian access points (as at Park Wood, Hellingly). It will
be necessary to ensure that no vehicular access is possible, in order to prevent fly-tipping of household and
garden waste. Dog waste bins also need to be provided. Without these measures, ancient woodland near
residential areas soon loses its typical ground flora.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
At least maintaining the nature and quality of the environment is essential for the Wealden area to preserve the
attractiveness of the Wealden area to residents, visitors and tourists alike.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
What Green infrastructure is available is being wrecked by development in the last few years. I am shocked at
the building on flood plains and loss of fields and woodland and land for growing food because of this
development.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 94 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The words "where possible" after "should be retention" should be deleted.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Protection of existing natural environment is important to support wildlife
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Wildlife, fauna and flora must be protectedm especially where there is an existing habitat for a particular species.
Developments too easily remove existing hedgerows which are vital to many animals and birds for habitat etc.
The Parish Council would question whether a minimum of 15m landscape buffer is sufficient and would suggest
that this is raised to 20m.
Page 95 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Insufficient information provided in the documentation. Request for further information.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 96 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Sustaining and maintaining biodiversity and landscaping in the area is very important. SDA4 is close to the
natural beauty of the Downland; it is being developed on land which will remove the green belt which currently
exists between Polegate and Willingon- this in itself is contentious. Brownfield sites should definitely be used first.
However, if there is no alternative and this land is used then VERY careful landscaping, should be considered
and imposed as part of the Development plan.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 630362
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Robertson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As comment on 2b, this is another good theory. However, the area continues to be de-nuded of, in particular,
trees because of steady building development. A greater effort should be made to impose the planting of
MATURE trees within all development schemes, whether urban or country.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All mature trees and hedges should be retained to protect our wildlife and retain the ambience of the area as it is
at present.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 97 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 521490
Agent ID 521485
Ms
Smith
WE Vine Trust
Mr
Gillespie
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is likely that environmental off-setting will feature within the new National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
and that there will be a presumption in favour of sustainable development. Such an approach should be
anticipated within the DPD.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Particularly valuable where open farmland is being concreted over. I hope planners will learn from some of the
mistakes in the past in Willingdon and no doubt other areas.
Page 98 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The buffer zone to ancient woodland needs to be increased to at least 25 metres
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Agree - subject to detailed plans specific to the development area
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The SSDPD plan for 1,000 new homes selects a site that incorporates ancient woodland and a large area of what
is currently green farmland. The development will destroy a large area of habitat and it seems futile to pretend or
propose that any measures can mitigate the damage to biodiversity that the development will introduce. The
ancient woodland and surrounds to the West of Uckfield provides an important habitat to bats, birdlife and other
wildlife (which I have regularly observed in the area). It is essential that an ecological survey of the area be
carried out. In my opinion the proposed 15m exclusion boundary will not be sufficient to prevent damage to this
habitat and consideration should be given to substantially increasing the perimeter around this woodland.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is considered important that trees earmarked to be retained on development sites are protected by Tree
Preservation Orders well in advance of allocating any of this land for development. There is no mention of the
roman road running through the SDA 4 site and the line of that road and the hedgerows should be retained as a
feature.
Page 99 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The recommendation in the Natural England â€œStanding advice for ancient woodlandâ€ (version 2, February
2011) recommends a minimum distance of 15m between development and ancient woodland.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The appropriate protection, enhancement and extension of biodiversity are essential and more protection should
be given to retaining what is currently there rather than the statement of, â€œwhere appropriate compensating
for the loss of habitatsâ€¦â€ The emphasis should be on development around habitat rather than compensation
afterwards when damage may have been irreparably done.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
landscaping will affect the impact of any development, and should be carefully considered at planning stage
Page 100 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To accord with National and European Directives and to achieve sustainable developmentsubject to the
requirements being reasonbly related to the development proposed and the degree of importance of the specific
natural resource.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
Mr
Barker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Agree but there should be a balance between habitat preservation and the creation of high qaulity housing
developments.
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Biodiversity and Landscape Features - maintenance of unimproved, native flower-rich grassland with sensitive
management is very important. Access points for semi-natural ancient woodland need to be sited well away from
houses and roads, i.e. accessed only by walking, in order to prevent fly tipping of household and garden waste.
Adequate provision of disposal of household waste should be incorporated in developments. Provision of dog
bins near footpaths to prevent over fertilisation of woodland soil is also important.
Attachment: no
Question 15b
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 3 may provide more employment. It would create a better balance with existing industrial sites along
Dittons Road, Polegate and in conjunction with housing SDA 6 & 7 Site G. It would maintain an open vista along
the road corridor by not allowing development close to a main route into Eastbourne.
Page 101 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This area straddles two parishes, Polegate and Willingdon and has always acted as a green belt or natural
border between the parishes. I cannot comment on Willingdon's proportion but as a resident of Polegate it is a
pity that Hindsland cannot be utilised as a leisure outlet. The green fields could be used once more for sport plus
there could be a long awaited swimming pool and bowling alley which the young people of Polegate have
requested for years. Unfortunately Eastbourne Road can get extremley busy so access onto and off may be a
problem unless there was a roundabout or junction with traffic lights. The nearby senior school could benefit from
the extra facilities as could the junior school in Willingdon. The young people of Polegate are fobbed off with a
skate park and a football pitch but they really need to enagage in structured activities and places where adults
are present to reduce the risk of anti social behaviour.
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 504237
Mr
Agent ID
Elsherif
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This option Maximise the use to all available land to ensure that densities are low and compatible with the
location.4 stories highly visible single business building could be considered as part of land mark for Polegate,
increase market new employment opportunities within the area, increase the market demand and quicken the
site to be delivered. It will lose the open aspect from the Golden Jubilee Way, and reduce the visible open gap
between Polegate and Stone Cross.
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 629038
Mr
Agent ID
James
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 102 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 334647
Mr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As mentioned at the public Local Development Framework examination. There were many developers/
landowners have suggested sites can be built on, Wealden District Council have not full asset them and added
for public consultation. This site should not be develop on as it without the full workable infrastructure delivery
plan and the funding for it.
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 534675
Cllr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
At the Local Development Framework public examination hearing, many developers/ landowners have suggested
sites can be built on, Wealden District Council have not full asset those sites and added them for public
consultation. This site needs a full workable infrastructure delivery plan and the funding for it, before any
development take place.
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
At least part of the site should be used to access Mornings Mill Farm
Page 103 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Don't want building work in the first place.
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 104437
Mr
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Bring under Community Land Trust
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Agent ID
Piper
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I think the layout on Figure 9.7 is the best option as the higher density would be less intrusive.
Attachment: yes
Question 16a
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 1 is less favourable as the proposal for a landmark building in the corner of the site facing the road would
reduce the green corridor identified above. Any proposals for developing this part of the site would need to
provide a very high quality building to overcome the need for this landscape buffer. Option 1 is preferred as it
provides the greatest potential for biodiversity enhancement and renewable energy generation.
Page 104 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16a
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Need to present coalescence with Polegate.
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I disagree with building on SDA4 but would be in favour of increasing employment opportunities in SDA5
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 504237
Mr
Agent ID
Elsherif
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This option Increase the perception of a visible open gap between Polegate and Stone Cross; and the loss to
create a gateway building which might distract new businesses to this location and decrease the employment
development in area. Requires increase in density on the land; which impact on the optimum range, mix and size
of units that can be provided to meet market demand. Rely on higher densities for office use, with less market
demand in the area. Does not make efficient use of the whole land of the area; which leads to less employment
development.
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 629038
Mr
Agent ID
James
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 105 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 334647
Mr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 121805
Mr
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Increasing density bad, open land good.
Page 106 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 104437
Mr
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It doesn't happen. Developers don't know what open space is!
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Agent ID
Piper
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I think the layout on Figure 9.7 is the best option as the higher density would be less intrusive.
Attachment: yes
Question 16b
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 2 is preferred because the landscape considerations for the construction of the A22 Golden Jubilee Way
allowed for a green corridor effect which provided a landscape buffer between the road and development.
Attachment: no
Question 16b
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This provides options for future long term development as well as immediate demand.
Page 107 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 504237
Mr
Agent ID
Elsherif
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This option develops the western area only and does not make efficient use of the whole land, which would not
be sufficient to go on with the SDA policy WCS 4 of the Core Strategy. It relies on higher densities for office use,
with less market demand in the area. This would provide less additional employment opportunities than in option
1. It require a higher density and height of buildings to accommodate the car parking and loading space, the
increased storey height would limit the range, mix and size of provided units. Will prevent wind generation and
reduce renewable energy potential and will be more prominent in the landscape. The option Increases the
perception of a visible open gap between Polegate and Stone Cross.
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 628436
Mr
Agent ID
Lynch
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I disagree with both if you dont build houses what is the point in building units for people to work that are not
here? Once again the planning does not show what has already been passed. There is a 22,000sqm units
already passed planning on the north side of dittons road this is 3 times bigger than the SDA5. Also there is units
all over polegate and eastbourne that are not in use. 1 in 7 shops closed and 1 in 8 units not in use. You cant
bring jobs just by building industrial units the work has to be there.
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 629038
Mr
Agent ID
James
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 629109
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bull
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 108 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 334647
Mr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Increasing density bad, open land good.
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 104437
Mr
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Over development.
Attachment: no
Question 16c
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I feel this is the best of the three options.
Page 109 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 22e
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This will require an adequate contaminated land assessment at the detailed planning stage on the basis of
historical uses. We would support a requirement for this assessment in policy and for new development to
remediate any contamination found through the assessment An area of flood risk is also present and a sequential
approach to the site should be taken so that new development is steered away from the areas at risk of flooding.
The new access should avoid any additional crossings of the Crowborough Ghyll.
Attachment: no
Question 22e
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No mention of providing work opportunities on site. Play facilities of residents - gardens for residents and wildlife.
Is there sufficient fresh water for all these extra houses?
Page 110 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 22e
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This approach will also help to address the delivery of the Ashdown Forest SANGS requirements particularly for
Crowborough and Uckfield. As with Uckfield there is already a good network of existing GI opportunities which
can be mapped and exploited to contribute to a â€˜green necklaceâ€™ around the town and address the need
for SANGS to mitigate potential impacts on Ashdown Forest these include: Â· Crowborough Common to the
south Â· Crowborough Ghyll to the East Â· Semi Natural Ancient Woodland to the north of the town and Â·
Ashdown Forest to the north Â· The Network of narrow lanes which could provide opportunities as quiet lanes
and recreational routes Guiding Principles SDA 8 Bluebell woodland is valuable town centre GI and could be
retained and managed for public access. As stated in the document this could contribute to the SANG. The trees
surrounding SDA 8 Pine Grove site would provide a valuable buffer to proposed development on this site and
screen development from the A26. A balance would be needed between retaining trees on this site and allowing
more development to reduce pressure on green field sites elsewhere. Mature trees should be retained as a
minimum Additional requirements for SDA 8 should include the following changes and additions: Â· Local
highway and junction improvements (as appropriate to achieve acceptable operating conditions). Â· Provision of
new or improved bus services, infrastructure and waiting facilities on current or new route serving development
site. Provision of new pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities and signage (to local facilities, footpath and cycle
routes) along Pine Grove, Beacon Road and within the town centre. Additional requirements for SDA 8 should
include the following changes and additions: Â· Local highway and junction improvements (as appropriate to
achieve acceptable operating conditions). Â· Provision of new or improved bus services, infrastructure and
waiting facilities on current or new route serving development site. Â· Provision of new pedestrian and cyclist
crossing facilities and signage (to local facilities, footpath and cycle routes) along Pine Grove, Beacon Road and
within the town centre. Additional requirements for SDA 9 should include the following changes and additions: Â·
Local highway and junction improvements (as appropriate to achieve acceptable operating conditions). Â·
Provision of new or improved bus services, infrastructure and waiting facilities on current or new route serving
development site. Â· Provision of new pedestrian crossing facilities and signage (to local facilities, footpath and
cycle routes) along Forest Dene, Burdett Road and Crowborough Hill (B2100), to improve access to local
facilities, bus stops and the railway station. The commitment to provide financial contributions towards the
provision of additional green infrastructure is welcomed. Wherever possible, opportunities should be sought to
find GI solutions that meet multiple requirements, i.e. wildlife + people. This can be achieved relatively easily in
amenity green spaces through sensitive landscaping.
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Representation ID 7
Person ID 620259
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Cole
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I support this proposal on the basis that it gives the lowest overall density (I believe the high density proposal for
Pine Grove is out of character with the adjacent area) and with the possibility to build at a lower density if the
remainder of Pine Grove is developed subsequently. An alternative and in my opinion better solution (and I can't
see how to fit this into your structured questions) develop MORE that 50% of Pine Grove but at lower density.
Page 111 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 625911
Mr
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 106488
Mr
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 344781
Agent ID 514224
Mr
Lines
Deklands Ltd
Mr
Hull
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
For the reasons we gave under SD8 (question 21 and 22) these sites should not be considered for housing but
employment type development. This being the case other options for housing growth should be considered
around the periphery of the town including SD10 other areas around SD9 and the contingency location north of
A26.
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 629308
Mr
Agent ID
Tennent
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Do not wish to see any development at Palesgate Lane and Millbrook Sites.
Page 112 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 629287
Agent ID 629284
Mr
Thomas
Servomex Ltd
Mr
Thomas
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Partly agree. As explained in response to Question 22a, the loss of woodland at Pine Grove would be harmful to
the landscape of the town centre; the loss of the long stay car park would be harmful to the vitality and viability of
the town centre; and the loss of offices at Beaconwood would be damaging to the local economy. Therefore,
development of 50% of the site with housing is not supported. Development of a smaller area of the site which
retained the car park and a belt of trees along the site boundaries could be considered. With regard to paragraph
11.55, whilst the land west of Palesgate Lane contains areas of ecological value these do not affect the entire site
and as explained in response to Question 22d further arboricultural and ecological survey work is required to
identify the exact nature and extent of the habitats on the site. The potential loss of ecological habitats should not
be regarded as a constraint on achieving a higher density on the developable area of the site. The land west of
Palesgate Lane is well located on the edge of the built up area and as set out in paragraph 11.52 of the
consultation document, existing links can be reinforced and new links incorporated to enhance pedestrian safety,
increase connectivity and reduce isolation including new crossing facilities on Rotherfield Road. These measures
together with convenient vehicular access from the B2100 via the estate road would further reduce any concerns
that housing development on the site would create an isolated community. Access through the industrial estate
would not be a disadvantage as the estate road network already carries a mix of traffic types including significant
amounts of private cars accessing the Servomex building, the Tesco supermarket and other premises on the
estate. Additional private vehicles generated by new housing development on the site would not be out of
keeping with the nature of traffic on the estate. The proximity of the industrial estate would not be harmful to
residential amenities as the adjacent Servomex building is principally a headquarters facility and in accordance
with the suggested guiding principles significant areas of tree screening would be retained and enhanced.
Increased traffic generation would not necessarily impact on Western Road as vehicle trips would inevitably
distribute over the wider road network including towards the town centre via the B2100. With regard to housing
density, the SHLAA summary (ref: 064/110) assessed the site as suitable, available and economically viable for
housing development with a net capacity of 32 dwellings ie around 30 dwellings per hectare on the area to be
developed. Subject to respecting the site constraints it should not be necessary to limit the density of
development on the area to be developed.
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Agent ID
Hellewell
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
the site at palesgate is not appropriate for development
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Palesgate Lane and Millbrook Garden Centre sites are not suitable for residential development.
Page 113 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 106704
Mrs
Agent ID
Selby
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 631042
Mrs
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Do not want to see any development of palesgate Lane
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 334812
Cllr
Agent ID
Shing
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Maximum it to 100%
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This sort of â€ãd hocâ€™ approach to development allocation is not the result of any suitable analytical
approach and does not result from a proper assessment of the sites. It therefore has no credibility as a means of
determining the most suitable way to develop the town. The Pine Grove plan in the document effectively still
shows development of the whole site, with loss of parking, loss of employment floorspace and loss of trees (the
use of the word â€˜indicativeâ€™ is particularly concerning if consultees are being asked to comment in respect
of such an unknown). The three sites at Jarvis Brook are all unsuitable for residential development and one of
them is not even available. Option 1 is unworkable and should be discounted.
Page 114 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 534675
Cllr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Should maximum it to 100%
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 625332
Agent ID
Cllr
Stogdon
Crowborough District & County Councillors
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is no logic to grouping sites SD8 and SD9 together, as one site is in the town centre and the other three
sites are at Jarvis Brook to the south east of the town. In general terms however we are of the opinion that the
Strategic Sites Development Plan Document should be revised to give proper consideration of the options for
economic and commercial development in Crowborough and in particular a re-appraisal is required of the options
set out for SD 8, Pine Grove to give much greater emphasis to opportunities for the civic, economic and
commercial use of SD 8 and the economic and commercial use of SD9.
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 630289
Agent ID
Mr
Kemp
Crowborough Conservation
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Palesgate Lane should not be included in any development plans due to the high number of protected species
present and its high biodiversity value (see 22D) .
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 631346
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Timms
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 115 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 23a
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Pine Grove - retain Car park, employment and amenity woodland. Jarvis Brook Depot - retain in existing use or
other employment uses. Millbrook Garden Centre - going concern - retain employment. Palesgate Lane - too
remote for residential - potential employment land.
Attachment: yes
Question 23a
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please refer to the attached supporting statement
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 631610
Ms
Agent ID
Spiers
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 23a
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Don't want to use the Ghyll land
Page 116 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 23a
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Palesgate Lane should not be developed but retained as GI to address SANGs provision in the area Given the
high ecological value of the Palesgate Lane land, and its proximity with and connectivity to Crowborough Ghyll,
Option 1 is not supported
Attachment: yes
Question 23a
Person ID 522256
Agent ID 522254
Mr
Pickup
M J Gleeson Group PLC
Mr
Pickup
Town & Country Planning Solutions
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
SDA 8: Pine Grove, Crowborough This SDA comprises the District Council's Crowborough office complex
together with facilities in the control of East Sussex County Council, an area of public car parking and an area of
woodland. The District Council has identified various options for redeveloping this land to provide between 62106 dwellings at a density ranging from 90-111 dwellings per hectare. Such a density would be exceptionally high
however, even in a town centre location. Furthermore, no consideration appears to have been given to the loss of
important town centre public parking or the potential loss of woodland that makes an important contribution in
terms of biodiversity and landscape character. SDA 9: Land at Jarvis Brook,. Crowborough Paragraph 11.26
confirms that this SDA comp[roses three separate sites within the Jarvis Brook area. For the reasons examined
and debated as part of Matter 9 of the Examination Hearing into the draft Core Strategy on 1st February 2012,
none of these three sites are appropriate for housing development. The land at Jarvis Brook Depot is in existing
employment use. Given the Council's stated concerns in the draft Core Strategy and background papers
regarding the potential for future employment development within Crowborough (which the Council claims acts as
a constraint to housing development in the town), there is a clear contradiction that the Council should then
identify land that would result in loss of existing employment use. Indeed this would be in conflict with the
Council's existing planning policies that seek to resist the loss of employment use (i.e. ;Policy BS5 of the adopted
Local Plan and Policy BS5 of the no-statutory Local Plan). The land identified to the west of Palesgate Lane has
its only potential means of access through an existing industrial area. The land has a number of other
topographical and landscape constraints that limit its development opportunities as a Greenfield site.
Attachment: yes
Question 25f
Person ID 631046
Agent ID 333969
Mr
Elliott
Mr
Nightingale
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Â·MDH agrees with the guiding principles of site G, but considers that there may be an additional opportunity to
provide parking or drop-off space for use by Jarvis Brook School, together with a safe crossing on Hadlow Down
Road. Â·An indicative masterplan showing how Sites G and H could be developed together has been produced
and is included below. It shows parking for properties in Western road and an area for the school.
Page 117 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 334812
Cllr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 534675
Cllr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 631036
Mrs
Agent ID
Dorling
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Western Road already overused and congested with traffic, cannot take any more. Large lorries add to the
congestion, and with parked cars all along make the road narrow in places causing obstruction. This is not an
area to develop.
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 107739
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This site needs a full workable infrastructure delivery plan and the funding is secured from developer, before any
Page 118 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 625332
Agent ID
Cllr
Stogdon
Crowborough District & County Councillors
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
See response to Question 25k below.
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 630289
Agent ID
Mr
Kemp
Crowborough Conservation
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As with all other proposed areas of development the guiding principles are sound, however Crowborough
Conservation does not believe this area should be developed. With its mix of hedgerows and scrubby grassland
this land represents an area of high conservation/ecological importance which can not be replaced .
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 631346
Mrs
Agent ID
Timms
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Do not agree with development at these sites as roads cannot sustain more traffic
Attachment: yes
Question 25f
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The guiding principles can be put into effect, but: - the topography makes the proposed parking provision for
Western Road residents impractical. - a buffer area is required to protect existing houses from being dominated
by new development on higher ground at the western end of the site. This will reduce devlopable area. - there
must be concerns about surface water run-off from the site causing localised flooding problems in Western Road
properties and this must be demonstrated to be able to be fully addressed.
Page 119 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Western Road and Hadlow Down road are completely unsuitable for development! Not only due to access road
but also parking for junior school.
Attachment: no
Question 25f
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Good idea to provide parking for Western Road residents. Have an issue with losing trees to wider road - speed
will be kept down if road is narrower.
Attachment: yes
Question 25f
Person ID 107142
Mr
Agent ID
Lightfoot
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
25f/25g This is an area rich in wildlife including slow worms, dormice & badgers. The ancient woodland along
Tubwell Lane would be at risk of being spoilt with increased football and traffic and there would be loss of flora
and fauna.
Attachment: yes
Question 25f
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The objectives are supported, as they include a strong commitment to protect and enhance biodiversity features;
this will help address landscape issues, GI and SANGS requirements. Transport The recognition of the traffic and
parking issues on Western Road is supported. Additional requirements for SDA 10 should include the following
changes and additions: Â· Local highway and junction improvements (as appropriate to achieve acceptable
operating conditions). Â· Provision of new or improved bus services, infrastructure and waiting facilities on current
or new route serving development site. Provision of new pedestrian and cyclist crossing facilities and signage (to
local facilities, footpath and cycle routes) along Walshes Road, Western Road and other roads to improve access
to local facilities, bus stops and the railway station.
Page 120 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 25f
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Due to the mosaic of habitats here including hedgerows, marshland, scrubland waterbodies and trees the
potential to impact on ecological/biodiverse features is high. Natural Englands would remind the Council of its
duties to conserve and enhance biodiversity features is high. Natural England would remind the Council of its
duties to conserve and exhance biodiversity. This should be clearly stated as a guiding principle fo rall options.
Again the large proportion of greenfield land allocated is dissapointing. Key elements of this area must again to
be retain green network and biodiversity of the area as consideration of this is not currently cited as guiding
principle. Natural England advises that this is included as a key guiding principle.
Attachment: yes
Question 25f
Person ID 631062
Mr
Agent ID
Wells
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Following my attendance at the Public Consultation on Saturday 4th Feb, I wish to comment on the Council's
options relating to areas G and H in Western Road, Jarvis Brook. Many attendees expressed the opinion, that
without off street parking in Western Road, for existing owners, the option to develop areas G and H, would incur
much opposition, with overwhelming problems of extra traffic along Western Road.
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 627465
Mr
Agent ID
Edwards
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Hadlow Down Road is a very busy road and Jarvis Brook School causes some congestion. The infrastructure
would probably not cope with development here and could cause overcrowding.
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 121 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 627729
Mr
Agent ID
Hirst
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
since this would only proceed with site G the same comments apply
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 103485
Mrs
Agent ID
Clarke
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 627714
Mr
Agent ID
Guntrip
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The road infrstructure in Western Road is unsuitable for further traffic generated by housing development. The
building of houses in the Jarvis Brook valley shoud not take place as any increase in surface water run-off will
increase the risk of flooding. There are protected species to be found in this area, namely dormouse and
slowworm.
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whilst not supporting development at Site H. The guiding principles are supported. Adequate provision of an
access road is a requirement.
Page 122 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 629863
Mr & Mrs
Agent ID
Swan
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The site in question is the one of the few natural respites from the over-development in Jarvis Brook for local
residents. It is also a haven for wildlife; badgers, deer etc. Same problem with run-off, this time from the
otherside, down the incline with resultant flood risk.
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 629886
Mrs
Agent ID
Edge
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This road junction is congested and already dangerous due to the parking generated by the school, and heavy
lorries unable to negotiate the bridge on Crowborough Hill. To develop this site would increase these risks, also
flooding on the road. It would also endanger wildlife there.
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Agent ID
Hellewell
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This site is not developable as there is no safe access route. All surrounding roads are narrow, Western Road
and Walshes Road will struggle to cope with additional traffic, especially given the capacity of this site. It is
unlikely that sufficient improvements can be made to the surrounding road network to enable development of this
site. In addition, development on this site is likely to have an unacceptable impact on the AONB.
Page 123 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 106704
Mrs
Agent ID
Selby
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I find it very difficult to comment on which areas in this section should be used for housing. With the Ghyll land in
each section and its importance as a wildlife corridor should not be underestimated. Ghyll habitats are an distinct
feature of the High Weald and provide a micro habitat that is import to its own fauna and flora as well as adding
to the surrounding habitats.
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 334647
Mr
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As mentioned at the Local Development Framework public examination hearing. There were many developers/
for public consultation. This site needs full workable infrastructure delivery plan and the funding for it. before any
Attachment: yes
Question 25g
Person ID 631046
Agent ID 333969
Mr
Elliott
Mr
Nightingale
Agree
Sound
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
MDH supports the guiding principles set out for Site H. The indicative masterplan reproduced below shows how
some of the site-specific issues can be accommodated.
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 334812
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 124 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 25g
Person ID 534675
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Somebody is trying
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Wildlife and the natural environment is suffering markedly from all this development. To have some control over
the developers intentions is some small compensation.
Page 125 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Disappointed at lack of emphasis on special quality of AONB. Should be buffer zone to AOND. Need to create
new wildlife corridors.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But buffer landscape should be 50m minimum. No removal of trees and hedgerows.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are using up too much good land for housing, the more we save the better. Would like a natural habitat, is
important to save.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Must be retained as they give life and character to an area and are corridors for wildlife.
Page 126 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1.1 General Guiding Principles relating to Biodiversity and Landscape features We support the inclusion of this
guiding principle. Many of the strategic sites have watercourses and other wetland features and habitats that will
require protection and enhancement.We also support the reference to the need to incorporate recommendations
from relevant Biodiversity Opportunity Areas (BOA).
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
well intended but unrealistic in current, forseeable economic future.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All mature trees and hedges should be retained to protect wildlife and ambience of each area.
Page 127 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
2(c) Biodiversity and Landscape Features - maintenance of unimproved, native flower-rich grassland with
sensitive management is very important. Access points for semi-natural ancient woodland need to be sited well
away from houses and roads, i.e. accessed only by walking, in order to prevent fly tipping of household and
garden waste. Adequate provision for disposal of household waste should be incorporated in all developments.
Provision of dog bins near footpaths to prevent fouling is also important
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No!
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are close to the South Downs National Park, this would destroy the view of the great South Downs.
Page 128 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Landscape The level of detail and thorough analysis of the site context and SDAs is welcomed. The guiding
principles for each site do highlight the significant issues which are important from a landscape perspective and
the supporting maps clearly indicate the significant landscape features which need to be retained and protected.
The comparisons of the various options for each settlement are a useful summary of the environmental
opportunities and constraints for each development option. The reference to character appraisals needs to be
clear that this is the general character of the areas and is not a landscape character assessment. There also
needs to be a clear distinction between landscape character and visual assessment as these are dealt with
separately in landscape assessment techniques. The cross reference to the â€˜Landscape Character
Assessment and Development Options Evaluation Study, 2009â€™ could usefully be made for each strategic
site. Ecology Under the General Guiding Principles the requirement to consider and incorporate biodiversity into
development design is welcomed. Greater emphasis needs to be placed on seeking opportunities to enhance
biodiversity within developments to help the Council address its duties under the Natural Environment and Rural
Communities (NERC) Act 2006. Section 40 of the NERC Act states that â€œEvery public authority must, in
exercising its functions, have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the
purpose of conserving biodiversity.â€ The Act goes on to state that conserving biodiversity includes restoring
and enhancing species populations and habitats as well as protecting them. The Duty applies to all local
authorities. Defra identifies the incorporation of biodiversity and its benefits into relevant strategies, including
sustainable development strategies, as an important aspect of integrating biodiversity into local authority
services. Paragraph 4.6 states â€œâ€¦ where appropriate compensating for the loss of habitats â€¦ through the
enhancement of existing habitats â€¦â€ . If habitats are to be lost through development, appropriate mitigation
must be provided; this could include the recreation of habitats as well as enhancement of existing habitats.
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Where possivle, we agree to the need for biodiversity and landscape features, but feel this shoud be aimed at
retention of mature and native flora and fauna which encourage wildlife.
Attachment: no
Question 2c
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To the retention of viable areas of biodiversity. Can landscape features be further defined?
Page 129 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree. I note in relation to the Mornings Mill Farm and Hindsland Playing Fields allocation that you have
earmarked certain trees for retention. These trees are not in the main protected currently by Tree Preservation
Orders and I suggest that needs to be arranged in advance of any earmarking of this land for development.
There is a roman road running through this site and I suggest that link should be protected and hedgerows kept.
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As a general point Natural England is disapponted to note the amount of Greenfield land which holds ecological
interest which is included in the site allocations. We support that all developments include consideration of both
on and off site biodiversity. This is a key factor in appropriately considering wildlife issues in development
proposals. IMpacts can be far-reaching and extend neyond the boundaries of the development per se. For
example inappropriately located housing developments result in issues of trampling, fly tipping, hydrological
changes, and general degradation of sensitive habitats (e.g. ancient woodlands). To this end we support the
proposed buffer of 15 metres to consider ancient woodland but would add that habitat encroachmwent and
degradation of woodlands must also be fully considered. We would refer you to Natural England's standing
advice on ancient woodlands for further advice. We fully support the rentention of mature hedgerows and trees.
These form vaulable wildlife corridors and, when considered on a strategic scale, can form valuable parts of
habitat networks and links to the countryside on a landscape scale. These can also be multifunctinal in nature
providing opportuinities for recreation and contact with nature. Considering these strategically in the LDF is the
most appropriate way to provide the required objectives of a network. Natural England welcomes these
measures as exmaples of good practice when considering the impacts of the LDF on wildlife and biodoversity.
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
General support for principle of protecting and enhancing bio-diversity resources. However, it is important that
consideration is given to the relative value of bio-diversity interest and that is of only local value, recognition
should be given to the opportunity that development proposals offer to mitigate and provide enhancement of the
otherwise limited resource.
Page 130 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2c
Person ID 104794
Agent ID
Ms
Henderson
The Woodland Trust
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Trust is pleased to see the above principles included and particularly the protection and â€œ15 meter
landscape buffer to protect areas or ancient woodland.â€ However, we believe that a great deal more should
be done to protect and enhance ancient woodland areas. Ancient woods are uniquely valuable. Their wildlife
communities are generally richer than those of recent woods, having developed over long periods of time. They
contain a high proportion of rare and vulnerable species, many of which require the stable conditions that ancient
woodland affords. As the terrestrial habitat most representative of original, natural, stable conditions, ancient
woodland is home to more threatened species than any other habitat in the UK. Ancient woods are the jewel in
our woodland crown. They are our richest sites for wildlife and are full of cultural heritage. Ancient woods are also
some of our prettiest woodland - some have carpets of bluebells, wood anemones and celandines in spring. The
biggest threat ancient woods and their wildlife now face is climate change. The UKâ€™s remaining ancient
woods are mainly small and fragmented: only 48 per cent of ancient woods on the Ancient Woodland Inventories
in Great Britain are under 5 ha in area. Most ancient woods are too small to sustain populations of many
woodland species and are too isolated to allow migration, especially given that many ancient woodland species
are relatively immobile. As climate change accelerates, species that are unable to relocate to occupy suitable
climate space may face local extinction. The Woodland Trust recommends that buffering and extending ancient
woodland sites is key to their long term protection and survival and that this should be done by focusing on
primarily expanding the cumulative core area and where possible linking existing areas of ancient woodland.
Details are listed in our publication Space for Nature which can be viewed or downloaded at
http://www.woodlandtrust.org.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/pdf/space.pdf. We would like to see this principle
included in the Wealden DC DPD Issues and Options paper.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
To reduce surface run-off, retention of washlands by rivers for temporary storage of floodwater, eg. in the Upper
Uck valley and the Cuckmere Valley.
Page 131 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The green spaces Polegate have are already under the recomended hectres. In Polegate we have Brightling
Road Recreation Ground and Wannock Road Recreation Ground. The greenbelt between Polegate and
Willingdon is the Hindsland Fields formely occupied by the Brighton University. If this area was built on there
would be no defined border and also our biodiversity would suffer irrepairable damage. Access onto a very busy
road would also cause problems to our landscape.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Re drainage- the building that has taken place is ruining drainage systems , the concreting over of land means
increased run off, and pollution of local steams and drying up of local streams.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 132 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The creation of more roads and hardscaping is creating more and regular flooding without adequate drainage runoffs. Yet we are approaching drought periods in the south east. This ought to be manged holistically and sensibly.
Building on flood plains is ludicrous
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Surface Water run off should be addressed to minimum potential flooding. Porous surfaces should be used as a
standard
Page 133 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There have been too many permitted developments within flood plains which have had adverse effects on the
natural water courses and on the development itself in the way of flooding. More attention should be given to
sites that are part of a flood plain, and ensuring that excess water can be used to create water features and to
disperse water that would otherwise cause un-necessary damage.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
as the area is on clay sufficient drainage should be in place so that the watwer is not re-routed and other
communities flood
Page 134 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Another very important issue. This land is very marshy. This area was known as Foulride due to the natural
drainage which once made it impassable to traffic. Water naturally flows from the higher land [Upper Willingdon]
and collects here. Development in Lower Willingdon in recent years has already caused flooding and drainage
problems in the area, and development of SDA4 will have to be very carefully managed to ensure that this does
not happen again.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 135 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Consideration also needs to be given to relieving flood areas and also to providing an additional reservoir as the
SE is supposedly always short of water (despite flooding at regular intervals in places!). Willingdon Levels and
the Eastbourne Park area would be ideal for a new reservoir and so retain the water that currently runs out to sea.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Hard surface overlay is a massive difficulty but can be helped by installation of drainage brick pavement edges
and all car parking areas plus drainage systems throughout build areas to be led to local swales, ponds with
filtration beds before the excess water is led to area water courses.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
surface water is problematic and it makes sense to address the issue to prevent any impact at the start of the
development process
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 136 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Care needs to be taken to ensure that current drainage is not only kept but improved. Open ditches form an
essential part of the drainage of this area and should be kept. Particular care needs to be taken with run off from
new development.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Opportunities need to be taken to improve existing drainage Much of Lower Willingdon drains through the SDA 4
site and particular care needs to be taken to ensure that ditches remain open and drainage is not interrupted.
Much of our problems with localised flooding have been due to the ditch system not being retained after previous
development
Page 137 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
However, the general principles are less than emphatic in addressing potential flooding and drainage issues. It is
suggested that more definitive language is used to ensure that there is no room for doubt as to the importance of
these issues.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As an objective to secure sustainable development but a caveat of "where practicable" should be included.
Page 138 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
Mr
Barker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 2d
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems - To reduce surface run-off, retain wash lands by rivers, for the temporary
storage of floodwater e.g. Upper Uk valley and Cuckmere valley.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is generally a wet area - we are struggling now in most areas.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Drainage on some sites is suspect and have flooded. Drainage ditches have been neglected for decades and will
require long term maintenance if some of these sites are developed.
Page 139 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are already having to get our water from Wales!
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As outlined in 4 - 7.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Ditches need to be cleaned out more often, water is an important issue.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Our 'sewerage system' is already at full capacity and the S.E. is at present suffering from a drought; these are
two reasons why housing should not be contemplated within this area. However, as the government gives us no
option, a new reservoir or desalination plant is needed and an efficient solution for the sewage system, drains
which do not back up and no objectionable odours.
Page 140 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2d
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We support the many references to the use of sustainable drainage systems (SUDS) throughout the sites. This
will manage and reduce surface water flood risk, provide habitat opportunity and improve water quality. We
support this principle and the promotion of SUDS as the preferred method of managing surface water drainage
and reducing flood risk. One small point is that the word "urban" is no longer preferred as SUDS can be used
also in rural locations. Surface water drainage must be considered at the earliest stages of the development
process to ensure that the most sustainable option can be delivered in all cases. Developers should be
encouraged to utilise SUDS, which now must meet the new SUDS standards in accordance wit the Flood and
Water management Act 2010 in order that they can be approved and adopted by the SUDS approval Body, in
this case East Sussex County Council. SUDS can also be used to maintain or improve the quantity of the
receiving watercourse and help enhance local biodiversity and public amenity, potentially making an important
contribution to Local Authority responsibilities under the Water Framework Directive. You have identified areas
for SUDS on many site proposal maps and this is useful to acknowledge the land take requirements for SUDS.
However, SUDS options should be assessed at a site level and the whole SUDS 'management train' considered.
SUDS elements could therefore be appropriate at many locations within an individual site area. We recommend
that you annotate the plans showing SUDS locations stating that the location is indicative and should be
determined through more detailed assessment of site conditions and defined through site design and layout.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
A vital element but I do not have enough understanding to make a judgement.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 141 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Consideration also needs to be given to relieving flood areas and possible provision of new reservoir as south
east always seems to be short of water.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Need to ensure as much land retains ability to absorb rainwater. The honeycombe type surface where grass
grows and cars can be parked should be used.
Attachment: yes
Question 2d
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
2(d) Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems - should as far as possible be self cleansing additionally the reduction
surface run-off sufficient to avoid flash flooding. The council should also retain wash lands by rivers, for the
temporary storage of floodwater e.g. Upper Uck Valley and Cuckmere Valley.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Has not the capability for sewerage and waste water!
Page 142 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The drainage system for the number of houses quote from 80 to 700 is dangerous (Hindland is low marshland).
Attachment: yes
Question 2d
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not only is there a need for drainage and sewerage, but consideration also should be made to reservoir and river
capacity in the provision of houshold water and econimic use of water within the development.
Attachment: no
Question 2d
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
For the prevention of flooding and interaction of run off between sites.
Attachment: yes
Question 2d
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree. Surface water from much of Lower Willingdon drains through the proposed development site and
particular care needs to be taken to ensure that drainage is not interrupted. Tou will be aware that homes in the
Oxendean Gardens area have been flooded in the past.
Page 143 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2d
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Natural England fully supports the incorporation of SUDS wherever possible in development proposals. These
reduce runoff, create valuable wildlife habitat and incorportae sustainable use and consideration of wastewater in
development proposals.
Attachment: yes
Question 2d
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Support, however where it is not possible to secure SUDS due for instance to ground conditions, alternative
means of drainage need to be considered.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Strongly agree. Even when the individual impact on a development energy-wise is relatively low, keeping strong
rules on carbon emissions sets a good precendent for the future and helps to make these technologies more
affordable in the long term. The next 50 years will see huge changes in how we consume and conserve energy,
and future generations will be grateful for the right decisions made now.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Re water efficiency, new houses should incorporate water saving measures such as sprinkler taps. Rain water
tanks and provision for recycling washing machine water for flushing toilets could also save water. Desalination
may need to be considered as housing numbers increase.
Page 144 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
New houses should incorporate water saving measures such as taps that stop running if there is no movement
(as in motorway service station facilities) Rain water tanks should be mandatory. The ability to recycle "grey"
water should be available
Page 145 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All development needs to be sustainable. Water storage for garden watering etc can be implemented when
building homes more easily than fitting it later once people are living in the properties.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is important to maximise renewable energy opportunities.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Insufficient information provided in the documentation for the guiding principles. Request for further information.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I would go further and make the provision of solar panels a condition of build for each property in a new
development.
Page 146 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All houses built now and in the future should incorporate energy and water saving mechanisms. We cannot
continue to build, build , build without starategies to conserve water and energy
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Availability of Water has become the de-facto problem in Kent & Sussex. New homes make this situation worse.
WDC must make a statment on this as a seperate entity applying to all developments. This is vital.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As new properties are built it is important that renewable sources of energy are built into the structure of the
whole development as well as the individual units. This will also help to make these dwellings desirable and
attractive
Page 147 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Solar energy is much more preferable and likely to give more gain than unsightly wind turbines that do not have a
good track record of providing sufficient energy, thus reducing the carbon footprint and energy bills for each
dwelling.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Seem to have got ahead of comments see comments within box 2F Your viewPlease tell us whether you Agree
or Disagree or you are providing further comments Further comments Throughout East Sussex wind power is
grossly inefficient that relies totally on back up fossile fuel sources. Solar power may be good at the moment but
no account has been taken into the maintenance feature that will arise on degrading and breakdown within the
individual panals. Great for the manufacturers at the moment but even greater when the house owners call for
replacementunits in tens years time. Banked areas of soloa fields are a far better commercial possibilty and
would be under the control of electricity suppiers with maintenance easier and cheaper.. The use of waste
incineration should be expanded in line with the expanding population to remove the additional tip sites that
currently will be required. Question 2f : Comment ID: 944 Response Date: 22/02/12 11:16
Page 148 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
renewable energy should be advocated and installed where ever possible
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I support all forms of renewable energy and hope installation will be required on new estates. Care needs to be
taken to ensure that the right forms are adopted on new estates. The way some solar heating has been installed
on roofs has destroyed design features and care needs to be taken to ensure that designs sympathetic to the
area are installed.
Page 149 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We agree that sustainable renwable energy opportunities should be maximised. It is about time that we had a
radical re-think on energy provision for new housing developments. We would like to see small energy recovery
units being installed as part of any new major development with the generated energy being used to provide heat
and/or power to the new homes as is the case in parts of Scandinavia.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Local renewable energy microgeneration projects are both cost and energy inefficient (and evidence of this is
building). Out of town or offshore large scale generating plants should be utilised to counter CO2 emissions
rather than token (and largely ineffective) local schemes. The area that would otherwise be used for such small
scale (ineffective) renewable energy schemes should be left as green field (thus mitigating the damaging effect
on biodiversity that the Uckfield development will have).
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Care needs to be taken to ensure design of buildings is not damaged by poor installation of solar panels.
Page 150 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The opportunities to take advantage of all forms of renewable energy should be mandatory and developers
should be encouraged to make their developments model examples of energy and water efficiency.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Support the objective of optimising (not maximising) renewable energy opportunities but south facing is not
always practicable and compliance with Building Regulations is required by law and does not need to be
repeated in planning policy.
Page 151 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
Mr
Barker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 2e
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Renewable energy - to assist water conservation, new houses should incorporate sprinkler taps, rain water tanks
in their roof spaces and provision for recycling washing machine water for flushing toilets
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No more wind farms.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Renewables should be promoted if found to be achievable.
Page 152 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are runing out of gas/oil
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As outlined in 4 - 8.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We also need underground water tanks to collect roof water to recycle.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I think that we, as a nation, should be prepared to accept a lower standard of living - we are spendthrift with our
resources. Wind farms are at present problematical, I do not favour them sited on land; so what kind of
renewable energy is being considered?
Page 153 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If implementable and technically, economically sound
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All houses should be solar energy efficient.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
very confusing wording.
Page 154 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2e
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
2(e) Renewable Energy - to assist water conservation, new houses should incorporate provision for capture of
rain water and grey water recycling for flushing toilets and outside uses
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Would you be willing to build eco-green homes, I doubt it!
Attachment: yes
Question 2e
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With regards to renewable energy the Parish Council agree with the guilding pronciples behind the drive for
alternative sources of energy.
Attachment: no
Question 2e
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Awareness of provision for future energy needs.
Attachment: yes
Question 2e
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 155 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2e
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We support the incorporation and provision of appropriate means by which sustainable travel options can be
used to encourage cycling and walking in preference to the car.
Attachment: yes
Question 2e
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Support for the maximisation of renewable energy opportunities where possible. Compliance with Building
Regulations is a given. However, there needs to be realisation of the cost attached to the installation of
renewable energy opportunities and viability taken into account within the overall requirements of a scheme.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Representation ID 2
Person ID 620259
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Cole
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As noted in a comment specifically on Pine Grove I believe the deferences to envisaged cycle use in
Crowborough are inappropriate; much of Crowborough is too hilly for this. Just stand in the High Street or Croft
Road and count them! You won't count many. And it's not because of the lack of cycle lanes; it's because of the
steep hills.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Strongly agree. Distance to public transport hubs should be considered as a major factor, and priority given to
sites within easy walking distance of train routes. Station car parks are already overcrowded in the area, so not
only is more development further from train stations environmentally unwise, it will also add to parking problems.
Page 156 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Cycling along 'A' roads is hazardous, especially near traffic islands. I would like to see footpaths widened by 'A'
roads in order to incorporate off-road cycle lanes. Alternatively, as few pedestrians use the footpaths, shared use
by pedestrians and cyclists who are willing to dismount when necessary, should be possible. Secure, covered
cycle parking facilities (as at rail stations) at bus stops may encourage more commuters to use public transport.
CCTV could be necessary in towns to deter vandalism or theft.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Cycle ways: there is much room for improvement in this area particularly in the A roads near towns.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is vitally important that renewal and sustainable energy should be used wherever possible. Solar Panels,
recycled rainwater for toilet flushing and non drinking water, wind turbines and better use of household refuse to
create energy should be used wherever possible.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 157 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whist, in principle, I agree with the principles of sustainable transport, I fear that many of the assumptions are
disingenuous. Many of the proposed sites are remote from local amenities and, importantly, employment
locations. It is unrealistic to believe people will walk or use bicycles todo the shopping or take their toddlers to a
distant school. A recent newspaper article entitled "Will the country bus come to a grinding halt?" calls into
question the long term future of bus services. With the privatisation of this item no unprofitable route will survive
and many sites will end up totally dependant on the car. Thus I believe transport issues must be subjected to a
much needed dose of realism and the validity of some sites re-examined.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Everything should be done to reduce non-essential travel by car but this will necessitate more frequent bus
services to and from surrounding areas e.g. Maresfield
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It would be good if new homes could have water storage for use as non drinking water etc.
Page 158 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whilst agreeing to the general principles for sustainable transport, most people will continue to rely on a car.
Attachment: yes
Question 2f
Person ID 629390
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lines
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1580 homes in North Wealden multiplied by 2 is 3,160 cars at least. This leads to car parking problems at home
and away at railway stations, namely Crowborough, Eridge and others. It requires improved roads to cater for
addtional traffic. When will London Road at Crowborough Cross to the 'T' junction at Lye become a Class 'B' road
and receive preferential gritting and snow clearance treatment? The rail used to reduce traffic congestion. There
seems to be an absolute stalemate by East Sussex County Council on reopening the Lewes to Uckfield line. Why
is this? If it is reopened what about Car Parking at stations. What about public transport bus services and routes?
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There should be regard to any project which would link a SDA with other parts of the parish or neighbouring
parishes. At Berwick we have a partly completed 'Berwick Way' which, if completed, would provide a safe
footpath/cycleway from specific sites within Berwick Station to other parts of the parish, namely Berwick Village
and Lower Berwick, and into Alfriston, plus giving access to the South Downs National Park. It is worth looking at
such projects and considering these in the setting and allocation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Insufficient information available in the documentation. Request for further information.
Page 159 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Every house has 2 cars; the raods will be become busier and more dangersous. A bus service is vital for all new
communities with links to other parts of the county.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In Heathfield pavements have become parking places, reckless parking prevails, it is not young people but the
older population and tradesmen who are mainly at fault. We must have a public transport system combined with
improved traffic management. The ever rising cost of fuel will do the rest.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 160 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Given that the main road is already gridlocked at the beginning and end of the day; and that joining the road at
the Triangle and at the Tesco filling station is extremely dangerous at these times, especially when it is dark and
wet; additional traffic will only make this more difficult. It is not clear from the plan where the entrance points to
the SDA4 development will be but a huge amount of research will have to go in to ensuring safety for all road
users. It is also important to note that a considerable amount of traffic will move from this development to the
schools, to the west and across the A2227. An east west overpass across the A2227 may be worth considering;
and if this is not possible, an underpass will be a necessity.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Consideration should be given to a Park and Ride facility to reduce travel by car into towns, ie use an appropriate
site in the area for SDA4 which would allow for 2 different routes into Eastbourne. A good example of such a
scheme is Chester where there is a Park and Ride system in place at an affordable amount which is also free to
bus pass holders.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 161 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Throughout East Sussex wind power is grossly inefficient that relies totally on back up fossile fuel sources. Solar
power may be good at the moment but no account has been taken into the maintenance feature that will arise on
degrading and breakdown within the individual panals. Great for the manufacturers at the moment but even
greater when the house owners call for replacementunits in tens years time. Banked areas of soloa fields are a
far better commercial possibilty and would be under the control of electricity suppiers with maintenance easier
and cheaper.. The use of waste incineration should be expanded in line with the expanding population to remove
the additional tip sites that currently will be required.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
public transport is costly in our rural county and services in my area are poor. there needs to be more emphasis
on public transport use as well as cycles and footpaths
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Cycling should be promoted as a sustainable form of transport within the new developments and cycling
infrastructure put in place not only on the sites themselves but also at key destinations and routes between.The
developers should make a contribution to the provision of these cycle routes.
Page 162 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Every site should be adequately served by public transport.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Effective additional public transport will only be effective if heavily subsidised - will the developers be asked to
fund this ?
Page 163 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I am surprised that a Park and Ride has not so far been investigated to for instance encourage commuters not to
park on the roads in the centre of Polegate and to encourage those who would prefer to not drive in to major
towns such as Eastbourne to use public transport.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Schemes should also recognise and seek to make best use of the infrastructure which already existing and
specifically in terms of SDA3, the proximity of the site to the Cuckoo Trail.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Encouraging alternative forms of transport to the car is essential to help ensure that town centre congestion is
eradicated. More emphasis should be given to providing greater cycle parking facilities in target destinations such
as town centres rather than within the development where such journeys would begin.
Page 164 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Increased traffic movement should be avoided where possible, and greener forms of transport such as cycling
and walking actively encouraged.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Support general objectives.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
Mr
Barker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The ability of a development to contribute to sustainable patterns of behvaiour should be a significant
consideration in the site allocations process.
Attachment: yes
Question 2f
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Sustainable Transport â€“ separate off-road cycle lanes are needed alongside A roads e.g. cycling along the A22
is very hazardous especially if lorries overtake cyclists near traffic islands. An off-road cycle lane eastwards along
the A22 and A271 to the Cuckoo Trail would be particularly useful. Improvement to the surfaces of green roads
for walkers and cyclists only, e.g. the green road from Camberlot Road cold form part of a cyclistsâ€™ by-pass of
the A22 to Golden Cross for Laughton and Ringmer. Cycle parking facilities are needed at bus stops. The
nearest bus stop from Upper Dicker is the Kings Head, Horsebridge, nearly 2 miles away
Page 165 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not if it comes on to A2270
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Sustainable transport should be encouraged but needs to be longterm provision even if subsidised (Bus services
in particular)
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not everyone drives.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 166 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Insufficient attention paid to making developers complete cycle paths and access paths before commencing
building - e.g. Park Road cycle path to hospital still not completed after 18 months.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But are we older one's going to start using a bicycle, I'm not! Need more work from home or on site, think about
trams.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
You cannot compel people to use buses and the idea of a quality bus lane seems ridiculous. Cycle lanes exist
but are narrow and dangerous. The use of a main exist on to the A22 is catastrophic. There are plans for further
development near this road which has grid-lock at some times of the day; e.g. do not think suggest improvement
will alleviate the situation.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If implementable and underpinned by commitment of providers.
Page 167 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Consideration should be given to park and ride schemes to reduce travel by car.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But not practical as Crowborough is hilly, so few people will cycle.
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Overcrowded now!
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The car jam 7.50am to 9.00am and 5.00pm to 6.30pm on both the A271/A22 is at breaking point; the increase of
housing and this increase in cars, is damaging to all!
Page 168 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2f
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is naive to assume that cycling will be used as a serious form of transport for accessing employment and
shopping. Where cycling can be appropriate separate off-road cycle lanes are needed alongside A roads. e.g.
cycling along the A22 is very hazardous. An off-road cycle lane eastwards along the A22 and A271 to the
Cuckoo Trail would be particularly useful. Cycle parking facilities are needed at bus stops.
Attachment: yes
Question 2f
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Transport The Masterplan for sites should allow through-routes (rather than cul de sacs) for buses to connect to
existing routes. Ideally this could be achieved by engaging with relevant bus operators at an early stage in the
design of the site. Good design which enables easy use of public transport can lead to services quickly becoming
economically viable and averting the need for on going contributions to support bus services. All SDAs should
have good pedestrian and cycling accessibility including good permeability through sites. Pedestrian access to
bus stops either within or in the vicinity of the development site should be a priority with attractive Disability
Discrimination Act compliant infrastructure and waiting facilities. There should be an assumption towards the
improvement and formal adoption of the public rights of way crossing, abutting or connecting with the site under
appropriate agreements. Consideration should also be given to the current limitations of the existing public paths
and the inclusion of the upgrading of public access to provide suitable transport links to the site, e.g the
upgrading of footpaths to multi use/cycle routes. Reference to the Quality Bus Corridor linking Hailsham via
Polegate and Willingdon to Eastbourne should be referred to under strategic infrastructure not specific site
requirements as it will not only serve this site but also SDAs 3 and 4. Work is currently being undertaken to
explore the possibility of a Wealden-wide Quality Bus Partnership (QBP) following preliminary work to investigate
the potential for improvements to services and infrastructure. The SSDPD should include wording along the lines
of, â€œall sites to be designed in discussion with bus operators and local community representatives (i.e. the
working group for QBP) as part of a proposed Wealden District QBP.â€ Other bus services and infrastructure
will be required on a site specific basis to ensure both access to bus services and pedestrian access from all
areas of the site to bus stops. As referred to under SDA 2 comments reference to the Quality Bus corridor should
be in the strategic infrastructure requirement section and other bus services and infrastructure will be required on
a site specific basis.
Page 169 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2f
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Local roads are already congested and all new development should have cucle paths not just within the scheme,
but perhaps to join and contribute to a district to a district wide cycle path. Consideration should also be given to
how public transport can be joined-up with new decelopments providing a cost effective solutions to improve
transport throughout neighbouring communities (i.e am increase rural bus service)
Attachment: no
Question 2f
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Reduce reliance on private motoring.
Attachment: yes
Question 2f
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree. However, Secure by Design (SBD) principles should apply.
Attachment: yes
Question 2f
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Support. Recognition should be made to the relative merits of sites for development, giving preference for those
which provide gretare opportunities for sustainable transport including opportunities to link into existing and
potential provision of new networks for travel by foot, cycle and public transport. Sites contiguous with existing
urban settlement limits are likely to offer the greatest scope.
Page 170 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Representation ID 5
Person ID 620259
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Cole
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Although we must provide low-cost housing we should not imagine that within the lifetime of these new dwelling
car ownership for these residents will remain low. For this reason I think the options with the highest densities
(essentially those in Pine Grove) are flawed as they will not allow for longterm growth in the number of vehicles.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Parking also needs to include space for cars of visiting friends, relatives and contractors. More parking space will
be needed in town centres - Hailsham's car parks are already full on weekdays.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 626372
Dr.
Sound
Agent ID
Sang
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Parking cars should not be accorded an unduly high priority.
Page 171 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Better public transport is vital. The reinstatement of a railway line between Eastbourne and Hailsham and
Uckfield would be an idealistic target to strive for as it would encourage people to travel to work rather than drive.
Transport fares should be affordable and flexible working hours introduced to enable people to travel after the
rush hour. If houses have to be built on the boundary of the town, rather than allow people to drive into the station
and park outside people's houses can the train company or bus company run a shuttle bus service?
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 627465
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Edwards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Free parking encourages people into Crowborough
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As night follows day the number of cars in a neighbourhood will multiply. To think otherwise would be for hope to
triumph over realism. Therefore, any development must provide for suitable parking for at least two cars per
household - preferably more to allow for visitors etc. Furthermore such parking must be in a position in which
vehicles can be monitored by their owners. It has been found that there is a marked reluctance, due to fear of
vandalism or theft for it to be otherwise. Should this not be so, it is inevitable that there will be roadside parking
with all the disadvantages that this brings.
Page 172 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Adequate parking must be available. Expecting everyone to walk or cycle to work is naive. There is not enough
parking on existing housing developments and streets. Please provide more. One garage plus one parking space
for a five bedroom house - not sensible
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There needs to be bigger parking provisions and better public transport. This needs to enhance the local high
streets.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Parking must be on-site so as to limit the impact on the surrounding area.
Page 173 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not only off street parking for the owners of the properties but adequate parking spaces for visitors to the
development to reduce on street parking to an acceptable level.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The present rule that 1.5 cars per average household is outdated and only possibly valid in an urban area with
excellent public transport systems. The absolute minimum provision should be 2 parking spaces per household in
rural areas
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please learn from existing new developments -THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING. One and a half parking
spaces per household is inadequate and short sighted in today's world. More parking spaces need to be provided
on and off street.
Page 174 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There needs to be a provision of 2/3 parking spaces per home. Otherwise roads are parked in and filled up
making emergency access and waste disposal access more difficult. Also, the home should not be cramped or
on top of each other. There should also be adequate playing areas for local children that is safe for them to use
and access.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Off road parking is so important in any development. Cars and larger vehicles parked on roads in the area
already cause damage to pavements and verges especially when large vehicles such as dust carts need to have
access. This is an ongoing high cost maintenace issue for councils which can be prevented with good planning
for parking.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 175 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is presently too much clogging up of roads by on road parking. It would also make areas more child
friendly with less risk of accidents if there were designated parking areas.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
although the wording should be stronger to require 2 parking spaces for any dwelling, since many people live in
twos at least and have a requirement for car transport at present - partly due to poor public transport
infrastructure. a half parking space is in reality not a parking space at all since you can't park one half of your car
without the other. it therefore ends up on the street
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 176 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision needs to be made for off road parking. Garages provided should be used for that purpose with
presumption against converting them to form part of the accommodation.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With regards to Uckfield parking is severely limited in most residential estates. Any new development should
have a requirement for offroad parking space for a minimum of two cars per house
Page 177 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Provision should be made for sufficient off road parking and policies against converting garages into
accommodation. If garages are provided in blocks separate from the homes it is essential that the Secure by
Design principles should apply.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
On street parking should be minimised if not eradicated within new developments. Play streets should be
encouraged where the priority would be for recreation rather than on street vehicle parking.
Page 178 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 631312
MR
Sound
Agent ID
Medhurst
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
where additional transport into an area is unavoidable, parking should be made available to avoid creating other
issues such as road conjestion, traffic black spots, damage to verges, etc.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
Mr
Barker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 2g
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Parking - needs also to include space for cars of visiting friends, relatives and contractors
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 179 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Never enough.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Parking should be available for each home and be off road to make immediate roads safer.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is no use driving anywhere if there's nowhere to park when you get there.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Reasons as 4-10.
Page 180 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Maybe a car park on new site at one end of development area or a enclosed design underneath the homes.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Parking must be off-road. If garages are built they must be wide enough to accomodatte the increasing width of
today's cars. Unfortunately many people prefer to put them to other uses.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Every town should provide free parking to sustain viability of that town's residents and businesses.
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Each dwelling should have a designated parking area - isolated blocks of garages and footways to them are a
target for crime.
Page 181 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not enough space
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There will not be enough parking.
Attachment: yes
Question 2g
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
there should be a requirement for two off road car parking space for all units incorporating more than one
bedroom. There needs also to include space for cars of visiting friends, relatives and contractors.
Attachment: yes
Question 2g
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Parish Council feel that there is often not enough parking provision in decelopments, and we are not sure
how realistic numbers of parking spaces can be made available and take into consideration all other restrictions,
and it still be economically viable.
Page 182 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2g
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Practical solution to a progressive problem.
Attachment: yes
Question 2g
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree. There should be encouragement to use garages for their usual purpose and policies against converting
garages in to habitable accomodation. Where garages are provided in blocks the Secure by Design principles
should apply.
Attachment: yes
Question 2g
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 625911
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This really depends on the definition of 'good design' and 'local character'. Many new developments in the UK
lack imagination and character, as they try either to build to the lowest possible cost or to create cheap pastiches
of the 'local character'. The resultant developments, with identikit housing tracts, are unappealing. It would be
inspiring to see Wealden take a lead in encouraging more innovative, interesting and varied developments.
Page 183 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Encourage design in the local vernacular style, eg red bricks and hanging tiles.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is unrealistic to assume if you give a house only one parking space that is all they will require. In most families
now there are two family cars and a working vehicle or motorbike. If only one space is allocated the other
vehicles have to park in the street. This causes friction in neighbourhoods and results in people causing
obstructions and prevents residents from having visitors. Houses should therefore be built with two off road
spaces and a community car park on each estate once they have been used. This will also aid emergency
vehicles and add to the safety of children.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 627152
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Design- axiomatic that all recent developments have been hideous , cramped and crowded and wrecking what
were once lovely towns and villages- Hailsham, Uckfield, Heathfield all uglier.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 627465
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Edwards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All new buildings, commercial or otherwise, need to be in keeping with Crowborough
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 184 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 628492
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Warner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
and access.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106486
Agent ID
Mrs
Hewes
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 185 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Insufficient information in the documentation. Request for further information.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please plan with adequate space for children to play and for sensible and adequate parking
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
and access.
Page 186 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Design is what makes any area attractive and acceptable. We do not have sufficient information at this stage to
comment appropriately but naturally this needs to be very carefully addressed by the Councils involved.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Any design needs to be well thought out with sufficient attention given to the resident population and their needs.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 103033
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jones
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 187 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Design must be taken up to level 6 standards as soon as possible. East sussex is still using out of date standards
where planning permission was given several years ago when lower standards existed. On some sites this will
not see the completion for a number of years yet lower efficiency construction standads will continue based on
the date of planning approval. As new standards are introduced then such standard should be compulsory on
any building being errected even though permission was granted prior to the new standards date.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 630710
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hellewell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 630887
Agent ID
Cllr
Steen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Street design should be geared toward the provission of safer cycling and walking.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 188 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 118290
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
New development should be sympathetic with the existing surrounding area and should not stick out like a sore
thumb from miles away as we have seen in the past. Development should be in accordance with the Design
Guide which may need to be amended to support the LDF. Flats should only be built in towns.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We agree with the general guiding principles but consider the statement to be lacking in substance and would
like to see more detail.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Agree - subject to detailed plans specific to the development area, and taking into account existing design and
character of the settlement
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With regards to Uckfield development house design should minimise the visual impact on skyline on what is
currently green fields
Page 189 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 121805
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Watkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Any proposed development needs to sympathetic to the surrounding area and should comply with the Design
Guide.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106665
Agent ID
Miss
Parker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 630875
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Chambers
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The value of design cannot be underestimated in achieving a desirable place to live.
Page 190 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 103606
Agent ID 516026
Mrs
Kelly
Rydon Homes Ltd
Mr. Hough
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 522212
Agent ID 522207
Mr
Skellorn
Mr
Barker
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 2h
Person ID 330727
Agent ID
Mrs
Simpson-Wells
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Design - encourage design in the local vernacular with regard to the history of brick and tiling making in the Low
Weald.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 534840
Agent ID 590067
Mr
Black
Mr
Webster
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not applicable - have not seen designs.
Page 191 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Housing needs to be as described. (but hopefully less claustrophobic productions as seen of recent local
developments)
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 108548
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Goldrick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Aesthetically pleasing, is kinder to the eye.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 2h
Person ID 107153
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Hollins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Apart from Infrastructure, I have an individual question on one type of development that appears yet to be
investigated and that is low rise/higher density development . My comment on the option of "low rise / high
density" applies generally to Crowborough and Wealden. As this type of development is more obtrusive I could
not be site specific but feel that with the constraints of AONB & National Park, land availability for 2/3 bed semi, is
a serious problem, whereas LR/HD, if applied sensitively and with high building and spatial design could solve
some of these more difficult issues. We may shy away from the tower blocks of the 60's but LR/HD (below 6
storeys) can be attractive and desirable, with the right design and setting. Clearly, this requires further
investigations and analysis.
Page 192 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Some of building work quality is appalling as supervision is by totally unqualified personnel. There are many
cases of furniture (standard size) not fitting in bedrooms etc. etc.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
But what is being built at the moment are awful.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We must not replicate the disasters of the 1960s. Make more use of local materials. Have a mixture of good
designs, road which are not straight, have grass verges and trees.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I do not have enough information to comment as I have been unable to visit any of the exhibitions.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 193 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 103171
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Any design needs to be well thought out taking into account existing design and character of the area.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 104381
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
very poor worded question.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Soviet style of course!
Attachment: yes
Question 2h
Person ID 104517
Agent ID
Mr
Moon
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
encourage design in the local vernacular with regard to the history of brick and tile making in the Low Weald.
Page 194 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2h
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Design Section 4.11 could be expanded to refer to the various levels of Landscape Character Assessment
including: Â· The National Character Assessment (Natural England) Â· The County Landscape Assessment
(ESCC) Â· The â€˜Landscape Character Assessment and Development Options Evaluation Study, 2009â€™,
which is referred to elsewhere in the document. Good design will reflect local distinctiveness and sense of place.
Attachment: no
Question 2h
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With the addition of a minimum level of landscaping to each development.
Attachment: yes
Question 2h
Person ID 521924
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd MP
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I agree but would add the need for development to "blend in" with the existing surrounding area in the case of
Mornings Mill Farm/Hindsland - Willingdon levels on one side a long view to the National Park on the other.
Should there not be reference to the Design Guide? Suggest that blocks of flats would be appropriate anywhere
in SDA 4.
Attachment: yes
Question 2h
Person ID 343219
Agent ID 102627
Ms
Terry
Ms Terry
Bell Cornwall
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 195 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 102886
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
King
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I do not live in the areas under consideration so am unable to comment specifically on the merits of them but
agree in principle with the approach taken, particularly in regard to affordable housing. However I believe that the
council should encourage developers to utilise rain water collection methods that would enable untreated but
otherwise clean rain water to be used for toilet flushing and garden irrigation, rather than let this water go to
waste and thereby have to use expensive, treated water for such tasks. When developing a site it should be
possible to install underground collection tanks for such purposes.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 627105
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bigsby
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The design of buildings should be sympathetic to the landscape and not dominate the area in terms of size or
colour. However they should be made from renewable sources and ecological products. Buildings should be built
to enable energy to be used more efficiently and for the owners/tenants to be more self sufficient.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 106488
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Richardson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 102667
Capt
Sound
Agent ID
Banfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 196 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Density is not mentioned as a guidiing principle but is paramount. Under no circumstances should a new
development breach the Government guidelines which have been adopted by Wealden.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We believe that the greenfield gaps between towns and villages should be maintained at all costs. We think this
is vital between Uckfield and Maresfield
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 629038
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
James
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
New developments should compliment existing areas. Also there needs to be provisions made for schools,
doctors, hospitals at the development stage. New developments should have access to existing shopping
facilities and not build their own shops of mini supermarkets that take money away from the existing high streets.
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 629390
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lines
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The inhabitants of 1560 new homes in North Wealden will need employment. There seems to be little in this area.
They will need schools, colleges and supporting libraries and IT services. They will need doctors, dentists,
nurses, mid-wives, hospitals, ambulance stations, Fire services, Police, Utilities, Water and wheelie bin services.
Page 197 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 513493
Agent ID 102476
Mr
Mr
Sound
Richards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Courtley
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Strategic Sites DPD options SD6 & SD7 must be in accordance with the guidelines set out in Policy WCS4
which gives a clear indication following its own audit trail towards the majority of Stone Cross housing provision
being directed towards the North of Stone Cross SD7 with the "provision of around 430 dwellings" whilst SD6
suggest a provision of 220 dwellings. As paragraph 6.31 states "The strategy provides the context for the
development of future policies in the Site Allocation DPDs" However the Councils Strategic Sites DPD current
appears not to conform with Policy WCS4 in that the majority of the options proposed show a clear preference for
housing development to the East and South East of Stone Cross. This is a distinct reversal of the WCS4
guidence where the majority (were possible) of housing should be to the North of Stone cross i.e. to meet its 430
target. Site A a sensitive location on the east of Stone Cross appears in every option while my clients Site F
(North of Stone Cross WCS4) appears in only 2 options. This is not justified or consistant with the Core Strategy
WCS4 and para 6.31. The starting point for the distribution of housing in Stone Cross should be in accordance
with Policy WCS4 and paragraph 6.31 of the Core Strategy. Policy SD7 suggesting a preference in housing
distribution towards the north of Stone Cross hence the figure 430 then that towards the east or south east of the
settlement. This must be reflected the the option sites presented in the SSDP. Stated simply Site F should appear
in all options and the majority of Site A removed as the site falls within a designated Flood Plain and as such is
contrary to PPG25 " sequential test" for suitable housing sites.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 105985
Agent ID
Mr
Goacher
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Parish Council would advocate that these 'principles' should form part of any consultation procedure with the
town or parish council, so that these are not overlooked or not considered by the local council in dealing with
each planning application.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 522137
Agent ID
Mrs
Ognjanovic
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 198 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 629904
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackets
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 629911
Agent ID
Mr
Sheppard
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If there are going to be hundreds of new homes - then the infrastructure has to be in place for them to exist. Not
just roads, but schools, libraries, doctors, community shops etc
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 621194
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holbourn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Availability of Water has become the de-facto problem in Kent & Sussex. New homes make this situation worse.
WDC must make a statment on this as a seperate entity applying to all developments. This is vital.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 629960
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Seaver
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 199 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 630214
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Just a few further thoughts. Access to Polegate is very important. Putting all the potential 1500 cars onto the
A2227 would be unthinkable. Many cars will require access to Polegate for shops, doctors' surgeries, school and
station as well as the link to the main road north. This is an opportunity to relieve the strain on the A2227 and put
access to the north/ north-east . A further railway station could be useful at this point so that some trains stop
here instead of Polegate or Hampden Park, thus making access to Eastbourne or Brighton and London easy
without the need to use a car. As an ex headteacher of a local school I am concerned about the pressure that
more pupils will bring to the already full schools. Consideration must be given to extending the current schools or
providing new schools. Given the already overstretched DGH facilities, especially A&E where a wait of 4 hours+
is common place and maternity services are threatened with closure is it reasonable to consider further large
housing developments? Given the large numbers of unemployed people in the area how will this development
provide employment for the possible 1000 inhabitants requiring employment? As already mentioned previously
safe routes over or under the A2227 between school and home must be considered as part of this plan. Another
pelican crossing is not the answer as these are dangerous and cause traffic hold ups. At busy times of the day
emergency vehicles already have difficulties working their way through the traffic from Polegate to the town/
hospital or vice versa. The risks posed by this must be a serious consideration in all that is planned
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 630470
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Blake
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 333031
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pritchett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Consideration should be given in any plan to the provision of allotment space so people without gardens are able
to grow their own produce and flowers if they wish. There are waiting lists in most areas for such provision and
much emphasis now on school children becoming involved in gardening and allotment projects so this is an
important consideration for any future development.
Page 200 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Wealden should embrace the Code for Sustainable Homes and insist that all new development is at least to
Code Level 4. Wealden should consider requiring homes to have minimum room space requirements so that the
trend towards reducing room sizes can be reversed. When converting flats more care should be taken on
providing adequate parking.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 519685
Agent ID
Mr
Beams
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There appears to be no consideration as to how the additional demand for potable water in the south-east region
will be meet with all of this additional development. We would also like to see greater consideration given to the
regional impact on the already congested roads in the Wealden District and details of what measures will be put
in place to deal with the addional traffic.
Page 201 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 522011
Agent ID 522002
Mr
Mr
Mayhew
DowsettMayhew Planning Partnership
Sound
Sim and Harvie-Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The interplay of the DPDs that will allocate land for housing (and other) development in Wealden District
indicates that the purpose of the Core Strategy is to identify the broad strategic areas for development, whilst the
SS DPD will identify the specific geographic extent of the Strategic Development Areas around the districts main
urban areas. The nature of the consultation exercise and its terminology indicates that the subsequent Delivery
and Site Allocations DPD (D&SA DPD) will now only consider housing allocations in rural areas. The
consequence of this approach is that land in and around the districtâ€™s main urban areas will only be allocated
for development in the LDF if they are designated as part of a â€˜Strategic Development Areaâ€™. There is no
longer provision within the LDF programme for the allocation of â€ñon-strategicâ€™ sites in and around the
townâ€™s urban areas to contribute to the overall housing need for the plan period. As a principle this approach
is flawed. It means that in sites, that are not of a strategic scale, but are nonetheless appropriate for housing
development, in particular having regard to the promotion of the concept of sustainable development, will be
ignored and not considered. The Core Strategy, by its very nature, is not an appropriate document to consider
and allocate non-strategic scale housing sites. However, the approach being promulgated by the District Council
in preparation of lower tier DPDâ€™s is to ignore consideration of all potential urban, and urban fringe, housing
sites that have not been identified within the Core Strategy. This approach is unsound. It is not justified. It cannot
demonstrate to have selected the most appropriate housing sites and strategy when assessed against the
reasonable alternatives; as the LPA are refusing to consider non-strategic alternatives in the districtâ€™s most
sustainable, urban areas. The housing allocations DPDs (in particular the SS DPD and D&SA DPD) will not be
justified as they are not founded on a robust and credible evidence base. The SS DPD should be amended to
either consider non-strategic scale housing sites around the districtâ€™s main urban areas to contribute toward
the housing growth targets, or it should be made clear in the DPD that such potential housing sites will be
considered in the subsequent D&SA DPD. At this stage, the Core Strategy is not adopted. It is possible that any
change in housing numbers in the lead up to adoption will be driven upwards, requiring the district to allocate
additional land for housing. Having regard to the overarching support for the concept of sustainable development,
any such increase in total numbers would be best delivered on sites within and on the edge of the towns main
urban areas. In particular, such growth should be directed to Uckfield, given that the town is comparatively less
constrained in landscape sensitivity and infrastructure capacity, and that it is the best placed of all the
districtâ€™s settlements to achieve the underlying aim of self-sufficiency. The IOSS DPD is consulting on a
defined area of SDA1 that would need to utilise the entire developable area, in order to deliver the requisite
growth set out in Policy WCS2, WCS3 and the aspirations of SD1 of the SVCS DPD (see para 5.14 of the IOSS
DPD). On this basis the geographic extent of SDA1 will be insufficient if the adopted Core Strategy increases the
required quantum of housing growth for Uckfield. In this scenario, the IOSS DPD has inadequate flexibility to
respond to changes to the Core Strategy. It would render the document unsound and would require preparation
of an entirely new document. The IOSS DPD is therefore unsound. It is not justified or effective in that it cannot
be modified to take account of very real potential changes to the emerging Core Strategy. The IOSS DPD should
be modified to make clear that final housing numbers have yet to be fixed in the Core Strategy; and on this basis
consultation is taking place on larger development areas than are necessary, in all the Districtâ€™s main urban
areas, to deliver the housing requirements in the SVCS DPD. In the event the housing numbers increase in the
final Core Strategy, the SS DPD can still be progressed, as it will have consulted on larger sites, that can be
selected from, to deliver the required housing numbers. This is akin to the concept of reserve/ contingency
housing sites, which it is noted has been used in consideration of the options for growth around the edge of
Crowborough (paragraph 6.38 and Figure 9 of the SVCS DPD).
Page 202 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Can't see the point of asking obvious questions with which it is a given thatpeopel will agree. You may as well ask
if you agree that all homes should have access to air and water or that houses should have a roof.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whilst appreciating that they are general principles and therefore cannot be detailed, it is felt they are not
emphatic enough in certain areas such as drainage and flooding and biodiversity and landscape features. Whilst
reference and some inclusion is made in the Community Infrastructure Levy, a possible additional guiding
principle, particularly for the larger sites, could include reference to establishing a well-served community capable
of providing locally for many of its needs. More specific reference could include the provision of employment
opportunities to help accommodate the additional population and retail provision to complement the other on site
facilities. Certainly the proposals for Uckfield would see an almost separate neighbourhood/community
established admittedly with minor pedestrian and cycle links to the main town but still being very much a discrete
development.
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 107017
Mesdames
Sound
Agent ID
Field
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Last night I heard on the television that we now have an official drought and that water will be rationed if we don
not have significant rain fall in the next few months. If this is the case, why are more and more houses being built
in this area? One presumes they will all have built in washing machines, dish washers and some will have ensuite bathrooms, and two toilets. All requiring vast amounts of water. Surely the sensible thing would be to stop
all building until the water situation is sorted out
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 631642
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gadd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
SDA4 is not East of Willingdon - it is North West
Page 203 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 631823
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoad
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I have great concern that much of the infrastructure shortage is not being addressed. (Identified in Wealdens
earlier documents e.g. water and roads)
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 106703
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Clark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not sufficient emphasis on protecting AONB. Ashdown Forest already very busy. Would wish to see plan to
accomodate more users.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 106956
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Elliott
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Stricter control over quality of building.
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 121819
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Lynn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Local need and Parish/town impact development locally led. Dwellings built for particular purposes and sizes
should not be enlarged. Restrictions imposed at outlet.
Page 204 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Opportunities exist for new development to contribute to improvements in the status of a number of water bodies
in the district therefore contributing to Water Framework Directive (WFD) objectives.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The SE Plan/Wealden Core strategy supposes that 9,300 + new homes is justifiable or sustainable in areas
where infrastructure and resources; roads, water, health areas already stressed by the current population.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 104310
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Piper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 631577
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Wilson
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Why is there no mention of employment? Apart from losing some if you build on Millbrook storage facility. There's
nothing to attract people to the town. How about a cinema at Pine Grove?
Page 205 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 632628
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Very very poor layout of this document!
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Infrastructure requirements It should be made clearer that the strategic infrastructure listed under individual
Strategic Development Allocations (SDAs) will not just support development within that SDA. It should as
appropriate state the other SDAs the infrastructure supports and that it will also support built or currently
committed development in the wider area. It may be more helpful to instead of repeating strategic infrastructure
requirements for each SDA to list the package of infrastructure measures and requirements needed for the wider
area, which will ultimately form part of the infrastructure delivery plan supporting the Local Development
Framework. For example one list of infrastructure which supports all development in Polegate, Willingdon and
Stone Cross. The document should strengthen and make absolutely clear the link between the necessity for the
strategic infrastructure and the delivery of development in the SDA. The document refers to infrastructure as
having been â€˜identified in relation toâ€™ this should be changed to requirements are â€˜criticalâ€™ to the
delivery of development in the SDA. There should also be a clearer and consistent distinction between strategic
infrastructure and infrastructure needed just to support the particular SDA. SDA 1 Para 6.27 does refer to
â€˜requirements which will be specific to the siteâ€™ however this is not repeated under other SDAs. Though
this element is covered in the â€ãdditional requirementsâ€™ sections there are items listed which are more
strategic and also relate to other development areas. Some of these have been identified below under specific
SDA comments. Similarly the Guiding Principles mapping for each settlement could begin to make the link
between: Â· Existing stream and river catchments and ponds. Â· All existing landscape and biodiversity features
worthy of retention. Â· Lanes, tracks and footpath corridors as sustainable transport opportunities. Formal play
and sport (however some consideration should be given to maximising opportunities for play in natural
environments and moving away from the constraints of providing expensive and age limited fixed play
equipment - an approach promoted by Play England).
Page 206 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 522256
Agent ID 522254
Mr
Pickup
M J Gleeson Group PLC
Mr
Pickup
Town & Country Planning Solutions
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS) Throughout sections 11 and 12 of the Strategic Sites Issues
and Options Consultations Paper, reference is made to the need to provide for SANGS as a mitigation measure
and alternative attraction to Ashdown Forest as a recreational facility. The Issues and Options Consultation
Paper does not however, identify how SANGS will be achieved in relation to each of the SDA's identified within
Crowborough or how such compensatory provision will be provided in advance of housing development taking
place, or managed thereafter. Although it is suggested elsewhere that a SANGS policy will be identified in the
remaining 'Delivery and Site Allocations' DPD, a consultation draft version has not yet been published and is not
due to be adopted until at least the end of 2013 (according to the Local Development Plan scheme 2009-2013).
At this stage therefore, there is no guarantee that suitable SANGS provision will be available to accommodate
future housing growth in Crowbourgh until at least after 2013 at the earliest. This could have serious implications
for the overall delivery housing land supply, both on strategic and other sites within the settlement. It is therefore,
a matter that should be given urgent consideration as part of the Strategic Sites Development Plan Document.
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 106769
Agent ID
Mrs
Scarff
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Any decelopment will include family homes and therefore an increase in children attending schools. This appears
to be considered with any major development, but what about small developments especially in rural villages?
The knock on effect of develpment on local infrastructure is significant.
Attachment: no
Question 2i
Person ID 105693
Agent ID 102523
Mr
Winwood
Mr
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Hall
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Favour the use of mixed brown/green field sites.
Page 207 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 2i
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We would urge the Council to minimise the impact on biodiversity and landscape and advise that retention and
enhancement of biodicersity is more clearly included as a guiding principle thrughout the DPS. Natural England
would welome the incorporation of a greater proportion of previously-developed land for future development. As a
general guiding principal we advise that landscaign schemes include naive species of local procenance which
are in keeping with the setting of the allocation site. We would also add as a guiding principal that the need to
provide full survey and mitigation for any staturorily protected species present on the application site must be
done at an early stage to inform devlopment. This is particulary relevant due to the large amount of green and
brownfield land which has been allocated in the DPD. Natural England refers you to our standing advice on
protected species for further information on this subject. To conclude Natural England is disappointed to note the
amount of greenfield land which holds ecological interest which is included in the site allocarions. We would urge
the Council to minimise the impact on biodiversity and landscape and advise that retention and enhancement of
biodiversity is more clearly included as a guiding principle throughout the DPD. We are concerned as outlined
above regarding the potential impact of the Hailsham East allocation on the Pevensey Levels and look forward to
working wirh the Council on these issues.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Ensure residential development is well away from the A22. Measures to prevent fly-tipping and dog-fouling in
Boothlands Wood.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 208 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 628858
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Withey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Although I agree in principle to the use of land at West Uckfield I disagree with the proposal to
â€œreinforce/create linkagesâ€ of certain pedestrian access points which will provide access through Longbury
to the West Uckfield site. To those on Wealden District Council who are unaware, Longbury is a private
development. The private drive and properties at Longbury are owned by the residents. There is no public access
or any rights of way through the development. The proposal that an existing public footpath, that already exists
via Shepherds Way, be used to provide an additional pedestrian access point via Longbury to the West Uckfield
site is unnecessary and totally unacceptable. If additional access points are considered necessary to supplement
existing arrangements, then alternative options should be examined.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We do not feel that a proper consultation process has been carried out as we have only very recently been made
aware of these development proposals which we heard of through neighbours. We feel that with development on
such a large scale the council should have ensured that all residents were made aware. Although the council
carried out a consultation, it is their responsibility to ensure that all relevant parties are fully informed. With
reference to our previous comment on consultation we would like to point out that we do not agree with these
development plans but are responding with our views due to the fact that you have given us a very short time in
which to respond.
Page 209 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1.The site is subject to a number of constraints which include the landscape context of the site, the proximity of
the Ashdown Forest and the access and connectivity to the centre of Uckfield. The Guiding Principles of the site
should set out the manner in which the site will be delivered and how these constraints will be managed and
overcome as part of the strategy for the option area. It is considered the Guiding Principles do not mitigate the
impact of the site on the landscape and there is no certainty in terms of access, connectivity or mitigation in
relation to the Ashdown Forest that can ensure the overall deliverability of the site. Access/Connectivity 2.The
SDA was originally identified by the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal for offering good connectivity with the
town centre and the potential for green infrastructure routes. The guiding principles propose a possible access
via the industrial estate to the north along with additional possible access points further along its boundaries to
the south. The access to the north is potentially prohibited by the issue of ownership and access rights over
private land as well as the resultant route running through a busy industrial estate which is less than ideal in
terms of crime prevention and highway safety issues. The other accesses are also prohibited by ownership
issues, distance from the town centre and the poor legibility of the routes. 3.In light of the issues of accessibility
and legibility, it is considered there is the significant possibility the site will not be delivered and even if it can be,
the layout of the surrounding development will undermine these linkages in creating a poor standard of
development. Furthermore, with the main access to the site joining the A22 it is likely the development will be
remain car dependant and due to the lack of linkages will remain detached from the town centre. This is contrary
to the aims of PPS1 and PPS3 in respect of creating sustainable communities. SANGS (Suitable Areas of Natural
Green Space) 4.The guiding principles of the SDA merely state a requirement for the provision of SANGS off site.
The SDA will provide 1000 dwellings within the 7km zone of the Ashdown Forest SPA/SAC and therefore the
significant effects of such a large strategic site area should be mitigated by way of SANGS as an integral and
coordinated part of the development of the SDA, not by vague requirements for off-site provision that it is entirely
unclear whether it could be met directly in association with the development of the site. 5.The SDA is a
particularly large allocation site which, unlike other SDAâ€™s within the District, provides the opportunity for
SANGS to be provided within the boundaries of the SDA, thus ensuring its deliverability in accordance with the
requirement that SANGS should be provided before any development is occupied. Since SANGS is required to
mitigate the recreational effects on the SAC, it is considered that land should be available within the SDA as part
of any integral scheme. Without such provision the mitigating effects of such areas are likely to be reduced as a
result. Therefore it is considered Figure 5.4 should indicate the potential areas of SANGS within the SDA to meet
the full requirement identified in the Core Strategy as it has done so with the other essential infrastructure, such
as SUDS, that are necessary for bringing the development forward. 6.A plan was produced by the council during
the Core Strategy Examination in response to a request by the inspector showing open spaces in public
ownership which it considered could potentially be upgraded to contribute to the SANGS requirement. The plan is
attached with these comments. The Guiding Principles should include a coordinated proposal for SANGS in
relation to this SDA but do not do so. Playing fields, school grounds and part of a disused railway line cannot be
said to be a coherent or deliverable network of green spaces. SDA1 offers the opportunity for designating
SANGS as an integral part of the site area but instead the Guiding Principles downgrade their importance to
mere off site provision. SANGS should follow the advice in Appendix 9 the Councilâ€™s background Paper 9
rather than a simple upgrading of a playing field or similar existing space.
Page 210 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No mention has been made of sewage lorries currently using Bell Farm Road to access the sewage works. this
road is residential and the size and number of lorries is increasing. This oportunity should be taken to divert these
lorries onto the A22.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 630891
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Hartle
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
These houses are near a flood plan area. After the River Uck floods, why are these type of areas still considered
as possible building areas?
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
However in the real world some of these guiding principles may not be affordable as they reduce the
developmental area of the overall site.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 334647
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
landowners have suggested sites can be built on, Wealden District Council have not full asset and added for
consultation.
Page 211 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 334647
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As mentioned at the Local Development Framework public examination hearing. There were many developers/
for public consultation. This site needs full workable infrastructure delivery plan and the funding for it. before any
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 334812
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 107739
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This site needs a full workable infrastructure delivery plan and the funding is secured from developer, before any
development take place. At the Local Development Framework public examination hearing, many developers/
landowners have suggested sites can be built on, Wealden District Council have not full asset those sites and
added them for public consultation.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 631178
Dr
Sound
Agent ID
sherriff
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
i do not want to see this beautiful land destroyed. One of the reasons i live in uckfield is because of its
surrounding countryside which is slowly disappearing.
Page 212 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Exclusion permiter around ancient woodland should be increased to 100m. The are is an important habitat for
bats, birds and other wildlife.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 631284
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lovell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This proposal represents significant over-development of Uckfield.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The majority of the specific issues appear to have been considered satisfactorily and further comment is made
under Question 3b
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 631367
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
DodÃ©
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I do not feel that a proper consultation process has been carried out as I have only very recently been made
aware of these development proposals which I heard of through neighbours. I feel that with development on such
a large scale the council should have ensured that all residents were made aware. Although the council carried
out a consultation, it is their responsibility to ensure that all relevant parties are fully informed.
Page 213 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 106824
Agent ID 102504
Mr
Sellwood
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Mr
Woolf
Woolf Bond Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is clear from the information attached that the Land at West Uckfield site should continue to be promoted within
SDA 1. The site offers a logical and sustainable extension to the settlement, and could make a positive
contribution to the District's housing requirement, which is currently under review by the Inspector.
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 631221
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Cunningham
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In figure 5.4 of the document, all the trees and hedges along the western boundary of the Victoria Ground appear
to be scheduled for removal unnecessarily
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 104353
Agent ID
Mr
Kneale
Southern Water
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Southern Water supports the principle that development funded measures for any odour mitigation required at
Uckfield wastewater treatment works are necessary. This is because Ofwat, the water industry economic
regulator, expects all costs to be met from the development and not from existing customers through increased
charges.
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 631275
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Dellar
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The plan indicates that there will only be one point of access to the development, this will necessitate another
roundabout on the busy A22, creating a bottleneck on what is already a busy road at peak times of the day. The
proposed footbridge and cycle path do not appear to be specifically marked, and given that the development
backs onto the existing industrial development, it is not clear where access can be safely established; so that
children and other pedestrians can safely walk into town, without having to negotiate the traffic using the
Bellbrook Industrial development. Proposed access to the Sewage farm through residential developments is
clearly flawed and dangerous; access to the adjacent A22 will be safer and cause less damage to residential
streets.
Page 214 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see Section 4 of the attached statement.
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Welbeck Strategic Land
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
WSL broadly agrees with suggested guiding principles for SDA1
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 631169
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Delves
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In paragraph 2.7.4 (vehicular access) I note that access will be entirely from the A22 trunk road and, if it is
ineveitable that this proposal is implemented, it at least will be the most acceptable solution
Page 215 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 106034
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Flittner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This whole proposal seems to be one big wish list with little knowledge or study undertaken as the of whether any
of it is achievable:- Provision of off site green infrastructure will presumably require other land owners to provide
such land, yet this is unlikely unless they are to receive an equalised price for their land. , and there is no
indication that this has even been looked into. Figure 5.1 shows green infrastructure potential on the other land,
but has it even been run by the owners, who no doubt consider their land is likely to get residential permission at
some point later if not sold now. This is all appears just a wish list. How are measures to the Ashdown Forest
going to mitigate recreational pressures? If the new residents want to visit the Ashdown Forest regardless of what
else is on offer locally they will, as they cannot be stopped. There is for instance a large number of local people
who drive to the Ashdown forest just to exercise their dogs, despite local alternatives. Presumably the waste
water plant will have to run at greater capacity with this proposed development, so is it even certain that odour
can be reduced sufficiently, and what happens if it cannot? Who is going to want to use green space by the
waste water plant if the odour is that bad that no other use can be allowed? The bypass is supposed to be a
bypass of the town, not provided a residential rat run, which is what will happen if this proposal went ahead. The
writer believes the council objected to an extra roundabout at the Downlands appeal. In this new case all the
traffic from the development would have to go onto the bypass and has no way of dispersing until it gets to the
Bellbrook or Little Horsted roundabout. This section of road is already very busy being the A22 and A26
combined and the extra traffic generated by this proposed development will undoubtedly cause this section of
road to be in permanent gridlock, thereby negating its purpose as a bypass. Whilst the council indicate cycle and
walk ways etc the fact of the matter is however much it is not liked, most people still use their cars for most
things. In this case it is far to far to walk to the Uckfield supermarkets and return with a load of shopping. There is
also bound to be a lot of toing and frowing between the Bellbrook and the new industrial area as businesses do
business with each other let alone the traffic the new industrial area will produce anyway. Just as it is quite likely
that many will chose, as current parents do, will drive their children to the off site schools whether the council
likes it or not. Thus the proposed access is a disaster waiting to happen. It may also have the effect that if the
main road is permanently congested car drivers will choose to go through the town instead, or use the back
roads that were used prior to the bypasses construction. If WDC are going to allow a new roundabout on the
bypass for this size of development, presumably there will be nothing to stop every other landowner with bypass
frontage from doing the same thing as well in the future thus negating the purpose of the bypass completely.
Provision of 15m strips will not stop the ancient woodland becoming completely degraded as natural area by dog
walkers and vandals, so apart from not building here, what's the point of having these strips? No amount of
planting etc will mitigate this development on the most open and exposed site in Wealden, if not the country.
Because of the slope of the land the development will be seen close to and for miles around whatever is done.
Presumably the council does not know if this is possible, or if there is land available on the Bellbrook side in
public or private ownership, to facilitate a foot and cycle bridge, particularly as the cycle path that will need a lot of
space if it is not to be so steep to make it undesirable to use. It would seem doubtful that noise reduction can be
achieved due to the slope of the land as noise travels upwards. As the Ridgewood stream has a water quality set
by current use, and water that flows in mostly from off of the site, how is the development going to improve the
water quality which has no control over as it mostly comes from elsewhere?
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached
Page 216 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We support the final bullet point in the list of guiding principles related to avoiding flood risk. Flood risk will need
to be fully assessed on a site specific basis and we support the need to avoid these areas. The Catchment Flood
Management Plan for this area highlights that there is currently a significant risk from fluvial flooding in this
catchment area. The preferred approach encourages a reduction in surface water run-off rates over existing for
new development. As such, we also support the inclusion of SUDS as part of development proposals within
SDA1.
Attachment: no
Question 3a
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Lack of prior public consultation or public awareness.
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 631282
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The major access to the proposed development will be from a new roundabout to be built on the existing single
lane A22. Whilst this looks ok on a drawing closer examination would show, that at these times would prove
disastrous. I was told at the exhibition that the site had been extensively surveyed. I would confirm that, Having
an excellent view of the fields from out house, I have never see anyone carrying out this work. To indicate this, a
row of oak trees close to the existing housing in the morth east corner of the site, have not been shown these
trees have preservation orders on them. Several hedges and gullies have also been left off Fig 5.3 the site
appraisal drawing. There has been no mention of the existing housing either indicated on the drawings or in the
write-ups produced with them. Even to the point that on Fig 5.4 the noise attenuation stops at the top north east
corner of the site leaving the existing houses without any protection fron the noise and dust etc that will be
inecitable from the building works. I therfore ask that this attenuation be edtended to protect the building works
Page 217 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is important that key features and habitats are identified and approprialy mapped before development land is
considered. We welcome that this apporach has been mentioned in fig 5.14 and it should be utilised as a useful
tool to maximise opportunities for habitat networks and biodiversity and landscape consideration.
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 107737
Agent ID 522234
Mr
Herbert
David Wilson Homes and Barratt Strategic Land
Mr
Herbert
SKM Colin Buchanan
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Paragraph 5.13 sets out the key guiding principles for development of land to the West of Uckfield (SD1). The
first bullet states that SANGS will be required. It states : 'Provision of appropriate green infrastructure, inlcuding
the off-site provision (i.e. oustide SDA1) of an area of Suitable Natural Green Spaces (SANGS) or the
enhancement of existing green infrastructure to allevitae the impacts of addtional, population growth on Ashdown
Forest'. Further reference to the requirment for SANGS is made under paragraph 5.42. However, no land has
been identified for the provision of SANGS in Uckfield, either on or off site. As noted in Section 2, this will
significantly impact on delivery and thus the ability for this site to come forward and contribute to the five-year
housing land supply. Land for SANGS should be identified through the SSDPD. Development should not come
forward in advance of SANGS being identified and secured. If land off-site is not available, then SANGS will need
to be provided on-site. This will significantly reduce the land available for development and, consequently, the
development capacity of the site. Land for SANGS and the consequences of this on site capacity and edelivery
should be fully explored in the SSDPD. At present, it is not.
Attachment: yes
Question 3a
Person ID 631281
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The major access to the proposed development will be from a new roundabout to be built on the existing single
lane A22. Whilst this looks ok on a drawing closer examination would show that at perods in the day, the road is
very busy, and adding further 1200-15-- vehicles at these times would prove disastrous. I was told at the
exhibition that the site had been extensively surveyed. I would confirm that having an excellent view of the fields
from our house, I have never seen anyone carrying out this work. To indicate this, a row of Oak Trees, close to
the existing housing in the north east corner of the site, have not been shown. These trees have preservation
orders on them. Several hedges and gullies have also been left off Fig 5.3 the site appraisal drawing. There has
been no mention of the existing housing, either indicated on the drawings or in the write-ups produced with them.
Even to the point that on Fig 5.4 the noise attenuation stops at the top north east corner of the site leaving the
existing houses without any protection from the noise and dust etc that will be inevitable from the building works.
Page 218 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The disused railway should be retained for future reinstatement of a rail link to Lewes.
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There will inevitably be significantly increased traffic volumes via the proposed new access to/from the A22 to
travel both north and south. In respect of the traffic travelling northwards to join the A26, the A272 or to continue
on the A22 it is imperative that traffic is directed onto the Maresfield bypass and does not go through the village,
or its surrounding lanes, as a shortcut. One small improvement would be to adjust an existing sign, located just
south of the Blackwood roundabout, which directs northbound traffic to Maresfield via the Budletts roundabout
and School Hill, where there is a primary school, rather than round the bypass to enter Maresfield by either Batts
Bridge Road or the Straight Half Mile.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 629381
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Featherstone
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In 2.12.30 of the Uckfield Background Paper it is stated that there is a possible requirement for the provision of a
single form entry primary school. This is in direct conflict with the advice recently provided at the ESCC County
Forum which I attend as an Area Governor. We were advised that taking account of the expected birth profiles
there is no need at all, nor are there any plans to the contrary, to provide anything other than one new school in
the entire county - and this is well to the east. Where has and on what information has WDC arrived at a contrary
view to ESCC. Secondly you state similarly that nursery provision of 60 spaces is a possible requirement,
Planning Permission exists for just this facility within a few hundred metres on the St.Michaels Convent site. My
understanding however is that the business and economic foundations to such a capital project do not exist and
yet you propose doubling the probably overcapacity. Figure 5.4 shows a created linkage running across my
shared land (namely the jointly owned private road Longbury) As a privately owned road access is limited solely
to the owners of the ten houses in Longbury and anyone having a legitimate reason to visit. It is inconcievable
that this could be changed to inlcude a footpath. It has to be said that some distress has been caused to the
owner of number 10 as the said footpath would have to cross a private garden where the young children of the
family owners play. This substantial objection also overlooks quite why a current footpath, number 10 or 11, is
inadequate. The other footpath change route shown runs directly along the boundary of the playing field and
recreation area of St.Philips Primary School. You are doubtless aware of the Child Protection issues that such a
change would invoke.
Page 219 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With reference to section 4.5 (the provision of leisure and recreational facilities) To provide these facilities we
suggest that Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise.
Page 220 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1.The site is subject to a number of constraints which include the landscape context of the site, the proximity of
the Ashdown Forest and the access and connectivity to the centre of Uckfield. The Guiding Principles of the site
should set out the manner in which the site will be delivered and how these constraints will be managed and
overcome as part of the strategy for the option area. It is considered the Guiding Principles do not mitigate the
impact of the site on the landscape and there is no certainty in terms of access, connectivity or mitigation in
relation to the Ashdown Forest that can ensure the overall deliverability of the site. Access/Connectivity 2.The
SDA was originally identified by the Core Strategy Sustainability Appraisal for offering good connectivity with the
town centre and the potential for green infrastructure routes. The guiding principles propose a possible access
via the industrial estate to the north along with additional possible access points further along its boundaries to
the south. The access to the north is potentially prohibited by the issue of ownership and access rights over
private land as well as the resultant route running through a busy industrial estate which is less than ideal in
terms of crime prevention and highway safety issues. The other accesses are also prohibited by ownership
issues, distance from the town centre and the poor legibility of the routes. 3.In light of the issues of accessibility
and legibility, it is considered there is the significant possibility the site will not be delivered and even if it can be,
the layout of the surrounding development will undermine these linkages in creating a poor standard of
development. Furthermore, with the main access to the site joining the A22 it is likely the development will be
remain car dependant and due to the lack of linkages will remain detached from the town centre. This is contrary
to the aims of PPS1 and PPS3 in respect of creating sustainable communities. SANGS (Suitable Areas of Natural
Green Space) 4.The guiding principles of the SDA merely state a requirement for the provision of SANGS off site.
The SDA will provide 1000 dwellings within the 7km zone of the Ashdown Forest SPA/SAC and therefore the
significant effects of such a large strategic site area should be mitigated by way of SANGS as an integral and
coordinated part of the development of the SDA, not by vague requirements for off-site provision that it is entirely
unclear whether it could be met directly in association with the development of the site. 5.The SDA is a
particularly large allocation site which, unlike other SDAâ€™s within the District, provides the opportunity for
SANGS to be provided within the boundaries of the SDA, thus ensuring its deliverability in accordance with the
requirement that SANGS should be provided before any development is occupied. Since SANGS is required to
mitigate the recreational effects on the SAC, it is considered that land should be available within the SDA as part
of any integral scheme. Without such provision the mitigating effects of such areas are likely to be reduced as a
result. Therefore it is considered Figure 5.4 should indicate the potential areas of SANGS within the SDA to meet
the full requirement identified in the Core Strategy as it has done so with the other essential infrastructure, such
as SUDS, that are necessary for bringing the development forward. 6.A plan was produced by the council during
the Core Strategy Examination in response to a request by the inspector showing open spaces in public
ownership which it considered could potentially be upgraded to contribute to the SANGS requirement. The plan is
attached with these comments. The Guiding Principles should include a coordinated proposal for SANGS in
relation to this SDA but do not do so. Playing fields, school grounds and part of a disused railway line cannot be
said to be a coherent or deliverable network of green spaces. SDA1 offers the opportunity for designating
SANGS as an integral part of the site area but instead the Guiding Principles downgrade their importance to
mere off site provision. SANGS should follow the advice in Appendix 9 the Councilâ€™s background Paper 9
rather than a simple upgrading of a playing field or similar existing space.
Page 221 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Access to the sewage works should come from the A22 rather than having the large sewage lorries driving
through town and down a narrow residential street. No access to the new development should be made along
Bell farm lane except by cycle and walking.
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Preservation of the track-bed of the former Uckfield to Lewes railway should be added to the list of Guiding
Principles. Concerning Uckfield and the 1000 houses at Ridgewood Farm this will affect Maresfield Parish and
also one of the only quality farms around for miles. Bellbrook is stated as being a place of employment but there
are no vacancies and no room for expansion, so incorrect statement. Government has stated that we will save
Greenfield as much as possible; how does the proposals for this Uckfield site fit in with this?
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 102875
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Thompson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
In The Daily Telegraph on the 10th January 2012 Prime Minister David Cameron asserted that future housing
estates will not be "plonked" on the edges of villages against the wishes of local people. Ridgewood is a village;
all be it that constant housing development within the area has now joined it to Uckfield but it has not be reclassified as a suburb of Uckfield. So why is our Prime Ministers statement being ignored? The proposed 1000
houses plus Business Park and Primary School would be contrary to the wishes of most of Ridgewood's
residents who have seen development upon development in this area over the last few years. Enough is enough.
Not one of our questions was answered to any satisfaction at the Civic Centre Exhibition on Saturday the 11th
February, not least why the land to the north of Uckfield is continually ignored when it comes to proposed
development. This area of Uckfield has seen no new significant development since Manor Park was built. Surely,
in the relentless drive to cover the southeast with housing, every part of an existing town must take their fair
share of the developments. Never once are people's views and quality of life taken into account; ancient trees
and wild life are often cited as more important reasons for not allowing building in particular areas than peoples'
emotional well being. The increase in traffic noise will be significant; the smell and health issues from an already
smelly sewage works will definitely get worse and, as to the infra-structure of Uckfield, that is already at capacity
and over stretched from supermarkets to health centres. Please re consider this development.
Page 222 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 522011
Agent ID 522002
Mr
Mr
Mayhew
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Figure 5.3 of the Strategic Sites DPD sets out a range of â€œkey featuresâ€ are to be considered as part of the
guiding principles for the strategic development area SDA1. These features are both opportunities and/or
constraints and will influence the developability of the site, the quantum and design approach. Figure 5.3 omits 2
key features; (i) the extent of exposed long range landscape views of the southern part of the site (defined as
Area C on Figure 5.7 of the IOSS DPD Background Paper); and (ii) the need to reach agreement to secure a new
direct access off the A22. There is no evidence within the DPD document that there is adequate capacity on the
A22 at this point. The SS DPD should be amended to acknowledge these additional key features, and that they
are part of the guiding principles for SDA1. It is of fundamental importance to identify the constraints that affect
the developable capacity and layout of the site. The IOSS DPD Background Paper acknowledges that the land
take required for the proposed quantum of development on SDA1, is likely to amount to some 46.5ha. It is
equally acknowledged that there is likely to be only some 51ha (of the 83ha total) available for development, and
that the surplus of 4.5ha will be required for environmental/ ecological mitigation and on-site open
space/recreational facilities. As reflected in paragraph 2.12.8 of the IOSS DPD Background Paper, the SS DPD
should be amended to acknowledge that there are â€œno options availableâ€¦ in relation to the land for the
development of the urban extension to the west of Uckfield, as all land will be required for the development,
mitigation or to support the development of the strategic development areaâ€ . This underlines the importance
of identifying all of the constraints which will influence the guiding principles for the development of the site. It also
underlines that the site does not offer any flexibility in locational options on whether to develop or leave
undeveloped different parts of the site. This is a weakness of the current defined area of the SDA and should be
acknowledged within para 5.13. It is appropriate to identify the Uckfield Waste Water Treatment Works (WWTW)
as a constraint to development. However, the identified â€œodour mitigation zoneâ€ is presented as an
absolute zone, yet it is clear from the IOSS DPD Background Paper that feasibility study work in seeking to
quantify the risk of new development being subject to an unacceptable level of odour from the WTW has yet to be
undertaken. It is therefore possible that the extent of undevelopable land in this area could be greater than has
been suggested by the existing zone area. The plan should be amended to emphasise the uncertainty of the
impact of the WWTW on the developable area of this part of the SDA. The Character Appraisal of the SDA
(Figure 5.3) notes the ridgeline and sloping nature of part of the southern area of the SDA. This results in it being
the most prominent and exposed part of the SDA, presenting long range views over the southern part of the site
(paragraph 2.4.25 of the IOSS DPD Background Paper). As a result of this topography and landscape sensitivity,
this part of the site is likely to have development capacity constraints. This is not adequately reflected in the
guiding principles for development of the site and Figure 5.3 and paragraph 5.13 should be amended
accordingly. The benefits of improving the connectivity of the site to Uckfield Town Centre is underlined.
However, there is a failure to acknowledge the benefit of enhanced connectivity, to existing and open space
facilities, including the Millennium Green, formal sports pitch and Ridgewood Village Hall, which are located a
short way to the south-east of the SDA. The benefits of improving connectivity to this area are reflected in the
Strategic Sites DPD Background Paper (see paragraph 2.6.2) but have not been transposed into the SS DPD.
Paragraph 5.13 should be amended accordingly. The benefit of providing open space along the Ridgewood
Stream corridor for the benefit of nature enhancement and open space is underlined. However, the
improvements should not be considered within the isolated confines of the existing extent of the SDA. It should
also recognise the opportunity and benefit of improving the corridor to the south east of the site (along the
boundary of Ridgewood House), to help link this to the river stream corridor adjacent to the Millennium Green. In
so doing, the benefit of the ecology and recreation open space enhancements would be more significant. It is
acknowledged that no development should take place within areas at risk of flooding from the Ridgewood
Stream. This acts as a constraint to the developable area in the southern tip of the site. This is acknowledged in
the SS DPD Background Paper (paragraph 2.12.6) but has not been clearly transposed into the SS DPD.
Consequential amendments should be made to paragraph 5.13. The SVCS DPD makes clear that SDA1 must be
capable of beginning the delivery of housing within the early part of the plan period (2016 onwards), in part in
order to â€œallow the market to deliver on a large single site housingâ€ (paragraph 5.16 SVCS DPD). If
development is not commenced on the site by 2016, a review of the Core Strategy in relation to Uckfield will be
required (Paragraph 6.11(3) of the SVCS DPD). The SS DPD should be amended to acknowledge that the need
to commence delivery of housing on SDA1 land in the early part of the plan period, to enable phased delivery up
Page 223 of 1161
Report March 2014
to 2030 is a guiding principle for SDA1 and that a failure to achieve this will trigger the need for a review of the
CS DPD. The existing guiding principles in the IOSS DPD fail to acknowledge all of the elements that will shape
the quantum of development and design approach for SDA1. As drafted it is therefore unsound as it is not a
prepared on a credible and robust evidence base. The SS DPD should be amended to acknowledge the
additional constraints, detailed above.
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Detailed ecological surveys should be carried out on the proposed Uckfield development area. To my knowledge
there has been no actual surveys for bats, birds, reptiles or other mammals carried out in recent years. A survey
carried out for a skate park build adjacent to the ancient woodland appeared to be desk based and did not
involve actual examination of the area.
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There is concern that instead of provision of appropriate green infrastructure as SANGs inappropriate attempts at
enhancement of existing green infrastructure may see overuse and subsequent deterioration of that infrastructure
including its biodiversity. It is understood that work has already been undertaken to gauge usage of a number of
sensitive areas, including Ancient Woodland to determine their suitability as SANGs, which is considered
inappropriate. The land adjacent to the waste water treatment works should not be considered as potential green
space. It has been accepted that there are issues with odours and it is considered inappropriate to place public
areas adjacent to the works especially if the suggestion is that this green space could be classed as a SANG.
The area should be used for renewable energy provision or other activity where people will seldom come into
direct contact with any odours, although it is accepted that another guiding principle is to ensure developer
funded investigation and also undertaking and funding of appropriate measures for mitigation. Reference or an
additional statement should be made as to whether the intention is for there to be vehicular access through the
north of the site and into the town. From the principles it would appear that it is unlikely that there will be vehicle
access although that is not made completely clear. If this is likely to be the case, as mentioned in Question 2i,
some reference could be made to establishing a well-served community capable of providing locally for many of
its needs. This would make the subsequent questions regarding the siting of Employment, Education and
Community use into more context with the development rather than the whole town.
Page 224 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630597
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Bentley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
You would create a dangerous situation by creating a footpath through this private road. A footpath exists, as it
always has, along Shepherds Way and it meanders from the main road to New Barn Playing Fields, see
enclosed Ordnance Survey map. For twelve years, that I have lived here, I have seen that footpath used. There
is no need for another via Longbury Private Road. Each of us bought a part of the road. I am sure that if you visit
the safe and satisfactory present situation, you will agree with us, I feel sure. This Private Road belongs to us.
We each look after our own section, and cut and turn our section of the Hedgegrow. On two occassions we paid
for Road Repairs * * No 10 *No9 The Highways refused to help, because we were reminded that Longbury is a
Private Road. Please consider the potential dangers from drug problems, and whatever other dangers and
potential frightening situations would lead to! We are in pitch darkness at nightfall, because we are not liable for
street lights.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631221
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Cunningham
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The residents of the Ridings estate in Uckfield already experience bad smells coming from the Sewage works in
Uckfield , and the addition of up to 5,000 more people in the catchment area is likely to further exceed the
capacity of the plant to process the waste satisfactorily. The Wealden Strategic Document states that measures
will have to be taken: " Mitigation measures at Uckfield wastewater treatment works to ensure that the new
development is not exposed to an unacceptable level of odour." Who decides what an acceptable smell of
sewage is? Bearing in mind the increased population and the prevailing wind, the southern half of Uckfield could
be pretty unpleasant in summers to come. Additionally, all trees along the boundaries of the existing Victoria
Ground should be retained and be made subject to tree preservation orders. The consultation document states
that there is no reason to retain these trees, but equally, as they are within the bounds of the current park, there
is no reason to retain these trees, but equally, as they are within the bounds of the current park, there is no
reason whatever why they should not be retained. Surely the default position for any decision involving the
removal of trees and hedges should be a presumption for retention unless a strong case is made as t why they
need to be removed There is a small pathway leading between houses in Forge Rise giving access to the park
and which has been the focus of considerable nuisance in the past The Strategic Dociments do not contain any
reference as to how such problems are to be prevented or managed in future, with a huge increase in population
surrounding the ground. If, indeed, we no longer have any right to object to the entire concept and size of the
development, it is the least that planners can do for us to insist on adequate screening and green buffer zones
between the new development and the existing homes.
Page 225 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 104353
Agent ID
Mr
Kneale
Southern Water
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The guiding principles should also make reference to the need for the provision of additional sewerage capacity.
Additional sewerage capacity will be required and development should be coordinated with its provision
Requisition procedures provide a mechanism for developers to provide the necessary infrastructure to service
their site. Section 5.13 should therefore include the following bullet point: Â· Provision of additional sewerage
capacity required to serve the development through the sewer requisition process Additional wastewater
treatment process capacity will also be required at the existing wastewater treatment works to enable delivery of
1,000 dwellings to be built at Uckfield. Section 5.13 should therefore include the following bullet point: Â·
Provision of additional treatment process capacity at Uckfield wastewater treatment works
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see Section 4 of the attached statement.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631275
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Dellar
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Traffic problems will be exacurbated by the need for access to the proposed industrial site, which depending on
the final location, will result in traffic driving through the housing development and then accessing the A22. Given
any ingress/egress point will be totally unacceptable to local residents the potential for road accidents are
significant
Page 226 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
WSL is currently in discussions with Southern Water regarding the likely extent of a Cordon Sanitaire. Until the
extent of the cordon sanitaire has been established with Southern Water and the Environment Agency an
indicative buffer is shown between the treatment works and the proposed development. WSL has instructed their
transport consultants, WSP, to undertake a fesibility study for pedestrian and cycle routes to provide linkages
with the town centre and the station. Initial work undertaken has shown that there are a number of opportunities
to create linkages with the town centre on the eatsern boundary of the site. The feasibility assessment will
carefully consider the aspiration for linking the site with the Bellbrook Industrial Estate over the disused railway
and River Uck. It will also consider the deliverability of the link from an engineering perspective, the assessment
will also determine whether such a link provides the quickest pedestrian or cycle access to the town centre, given
the availability of links along the eastern boundary of the site and the distance of the link from the developable
area of the site across the cordon sanitaire.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631169
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Delves
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As a resident of Bridge Farm Road I have to express my concern that the road is bedevilled with the parking of
commuters' cars and the heavy traffic to and from the Sewage Farm. Whilst parking is another issue, it is my
opinion that the sewerage emptying vehicles should be diverted so that all access to the Sewage Farm is from
the proposed development and, even if the development does not proceed, consideration should be given to
providing access from the A22trunk road. This would undoubtedly gain support from the residents of Bridge Farm
Road and Anvil Close and the Smithy beyond
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631260
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Endacott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
3. All existing trees and hedges to remain. This greenbelt land is rich with wildlife, Birds, Bats and owls to name a
few, must be given consideration because we are living in a rural area. 4. No consideration appears to have been
given to the prevailing wind direction with regard to unpleasant "smells" that come across the land from the
direction of the sewerage works. This will undoubtedly impact future sales of further residential properties when
building close to these fields
Page 227 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630791
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
3.All hedging and trees currently in situ must remain, to provide wildlife that inhabits this greenbelt land with
consideration. This site has bats, foxes, pheasants and many other creatures living on it as you would expect
from a rural area. This wildlife must not be forced out. 4.No consideration has been given on your pictures for any
noise attenuation for current residents, although it has been considered important for the bypass and sewerage
works area. We require this protection to be extended along the "L" shape of current residential area to provide
us with protection. 5. No awareness or consideration appears to have been given to prevailing wind direction
when considering this site for building. The winds come across the land from the direction of the sewerage works,
directly towards our properties, on the "L" shape residential area and often means we have to put up with
dreadful smells. These can currently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this as this issue,
as it is well known in Uckfield and will surely impact on the sale of further residential property in the vicinity of
these fields. The smells are very strong meaning our windows need to be kept closed on many occasions and
the smell can be overpowering actually making us feel sick at times. The impact of this can be smelt into the town
centre and is sometimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people find it most offensive.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630788
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
3.All hedging and trees currently in situ must remain, to provide wildlife that inhabits this greenbelt land with
from a rural area. This wildlife must not be forced out. 4.No consideration has been given on your pictures for any
us with protection. 5. No awareness or consideration appears to have been given to prevailing wind direction
when considering this site for building. The winds come across the land from the direction of the sewerage works,
dreadful smells. These can currently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this as this issue,
centre and is sometimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people find it most offensive.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Don't cover it with concrete. Please see attached.
Page 228 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
GB107041012630) adjoins the western boundary of SDA1, and bisects the site to the south. The Ridgewood
Stream is currently at "moderate status" and needs to be improved to "good status". It is failing on phosphate and
invertebrates and is at risk from diffuse pollution, morphology & non-native species (Himalayan Balsam).
Development within SDA1 must seek t improve the status of this river for example through drainage schemes
which include adequate pollution prevention measures. Non-native species assessments and mitigation
measures will be necessary at the detailed planning stages and should be identified through any forthcoming
policy.
Attachment: no
Question 3b
Person ID 621407
Agent ID
Mrs
McQueen
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As 3a)
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
4. All hedging and trees currently in situ must remain to provide a wildlife that inhabits this greenbelt land with
consideration. This site has bats, foxes, pheasants and many other creatures living onit as your would expect
from a rural area. This wildlife must not be forced out. 5. No consideration has been given on your pictures for
any noise attenuation for current residents, although it has been considered important for the bypass and
sewerage works area. We require this protection to be extended along the "L" shape of current residential area to
provide us with protection 8. should development of the land adjacent to my property go ahead, I would strongly
request that the council consider the impact to my garden, which is substantially higher and already subsiding.
Any development may well result in the soil simply giving way and therefore it is imperative that you undertake
any necessary work to stop this from happening.
Page 229 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This could also be better reflected in the Core Strategic Sites Context Plan for each settlement. For example; the
Uckfield SDA1: Fig 1 indicates two â€˜Green Infrastructure Potentialâ€™ links in to the SDA. This could be
expanded to show the potential for linking into existing GI for the whole settlement or itâ€™s â€˜Green
Necklaceâ€™ including West Park, the ancient woodland areas to the north of the town including Buxted Park.
The River Uck Valley, Ridgewood Stream Valley and the chalybeate spring valley to the east, linked by the
Uckfield Millennium Green around the south of the town. Many of these features are on the map but this could all
be mapped to link the GI potential and emphasise the opportunities they offer in relation to the SDAs. This
approach will also help to address the delivery of the Ashdown Forest SANGS requirements particularly for
Crowborough and Uckfield. Landscape There is concern about the potential impact that the development of
much of this area could have on views from the A22 and countryside to the west and south of the town. The
Landscape Character Assessment (2009) is not specifically referenced in this section as it is for Hailsham, which
is inconsistent. The assessment did identify some areas which closely relate to the existing built up area and do
not intrude onto the south west facing slopes. Guiding Principles There is general agreement with the guiding
principles, but there needs to be an indication of the most visually sensitive parts of the area on the plan; i.e. the
south and west facing slopes and prominent ridge top around Ridgewood Farm. It is unfortunate if the odour
issue restricts development to the least visually sensitive part of the area adjacent to the waste water treatment
works. Ecology Any additional planting along the ridgeline and boundaries will need to complement and be
sensitive to the existing hedgerow and ancient woodland. Native species appropriate to the local geology and
conditions should be chosen, using local provenance where possible. Transport The assessments of
infrastructure requirements are broadly acceptable. A primary access to the A22 and a secondary access to
Lewes Road are critical as well as the town centre traffic management scheme. Delete â€˜possibleâ€™ from
reference to â€˜secondary access from Lewes Roadâ€™. Additional requirements should also include: Â· Local
highway and junction improvements (as appropriate to achieve acceptable operating conditions). Â· Provision of
new or improved bus services, infrastructure and waiting facilities on current or new route serving development
site. Education Provision of additional early years, primary and secondary places are critical to the development.
Para 5.3.1 should specify that additional secondary places might be required in the form of new land and
buildings as an alternative option to extending existing provision. Ecology The provision of footpaths and cycle
routes is not in itself green infrastructure, unless those routes are sensitively landscaped to link them to
surrounding habitats and/or green spaces, or if they are incorporated into existing green corridors, e.g. river
corridors, along hedgerows etc. Care will need to be taken to ensure that the existing biodiversity is not damaged
by the development. Suggest bullet point is changed to: Â· Provision of footpath and cycle routes throughout the
development, providing links to the town centre and neighbouring areas, including a new pedestrian/cycle link
over the disused railway line and River Uck to the north of the site towards the town centre. Some of these routes
could form part of the areaâ€™s green infrastructure network. Links across the disused railway line should not
prejudice future reinstatement of the Uckfield to Lewes Railway Line. Education & Community Use options From
an ecological perspective, any of these options would be acceptable, but all would need to be sensitively
designed to take into account the high biodiversity value around the boundaries, most notably hedgerows and
areas of ancient woodland.
Page 230 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631013
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Mahony
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I object to retail, industrial or offices behind the current residential properties. In principle I object to any such
developments close to people's homes. I object to blocks of flats behind the current residential properties behind
the site. The hedge behind said properties should be retained to protect wildlife. Currently a flock of sparrows is
in residence there, a species in decline. A substantial buffer zone should be left to protect residents from privacy
intrusion, noise pollution and to ensure any possible escalation of subsidence problems. Infrastructure is in place
before commencement of any building work.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630796
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The sewerage works would need to be upgraded to cope with the extra waste this site would bring. The alarms
are constantly going off at the moment which leads me to believe that the system is already struggling with the
amount of waste that it has to deal with. There is also the issue with smells from this unit, very often the residents
who are local to the sewerage works find that they have to keep windows and doors shut as the smell can be
quite strong at times.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630795
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The sewerage works would need to be upgraded to cope with the extra waste this site would bring. The alarms
are constantly going off at the moment which leads me to believe that the system is already struggling with the
amount of waste that it has to deal with. There is also the issue of the smells from this unit; very often the
residents who are local to the sewage works find that they have to keep windows and door shut as the smell can
be quite strong at times.
Page 231 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 103670
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Buchan
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All hedges and trees currently in situ must remain to provide whillife that inhabits this greenbelt land with
consideration. This site has bats, foxes, pheasnats and many other creatures libing on it as your would expect
from a rural area. This wildlife must not be forces out. No consideration has been given on your pictire for any
noise atttenuation for current residents although it has been considered important for the bypass and sewerage
works area. We require this protectio to be extended along the L shape of cuttent residential area to provide us
with protection. No awareness or consideration appears to have been given to prevailing wind direction when
considering this site for building. The winds come across the land from the direction of the sewerage works,
directly towards our properties on the L shape residential area and often means we have to put up with dreadful
smells. These can currently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this as this issue as it is well
known in uckfiels and will surely impact on the sales of further residential property in the vicinity of these fields .
The smells are very strong meaning our window need to be kept closed on many occasions and the smell can be
overpowering actually making us feel sick at times. The impact of this can be smelt into the town centre and is
sometimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people find it most offensive
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631015
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Marchant
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All hedging and trees currently in situ must remain, to provide wildlife that inhabits this greenbelt land with
from a rural area. This wildlife must not be forced out. No consideration has been given on your pictures for any
works area. We require this protection to be extended along the "L" shape residential area to provide us with
protection. No awareness or consideration appears to have been given to prevailing wind direction when
directly towards our properties, on the "L2shape residential area and often means we have to put up with
dreadful smells. This can currently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this as this issue, as
it is well known in Uckfield and will surely impact on the sale of further residential property in the vicinity of these
fields. The smells are very strong meaning our windows need to be kept closed on many occasions and the smell
can be overpowering actually making us feel sick at times. The impact of this can be smelt into the Town Centre
and is sometimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people find it most offensive.
Page 232 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631023
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harris
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All hedges and trees currently in situ must remain, to provide wildlife that inhabits this greenbelt land with
consideration. This site has bats, foxess, pheasants and many other creatures living on it as you would expect
from a rural area. This wildlife must not be forced out. 4. no consideratio has been given on your pictures for any
noise attenuation for current residents, although it has been considered importan for the bypass and sewerage
works area. We require this protection to be extended along L shape of current residential area to provide us with
protection. 5. No awareness or consideration appears to have been gicen to precailing wind direction when
considering this site for building. the winds come actoss the land from the direction of the sewerage works,
directly towards our properties, on the L shape residential area and often neans we have to put up with dreadful
smells. These can cuttently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this as this issue, as it is
well known in Uckfield and will surely impact on the sale of further residential property in the vicinity of these
can be overpowering actually making us feel sick at times. The impact of this can be smelt into the town centre
and is sometimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people find it most offensive
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630781
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Horscroft
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
3. All hedging and trees currently in situ must remain, to provide wildlife must not be forced out. 4. No
consideration has been given on your pictures for any noise attenuation for current residents, although it has
been considered important for the bypass and sewerage works area. We require this protection to be extended
alond the 'L' shape of current residential area to provide us with protection. 5. No awareness or consideration
appears to have been given to provailing wind direction when considering this site for building. The wind comes
across the land from from the direction of the sewerage works, directly towards our properties, on the 'L' shape
residential area and often means we have to put up with dreadful smells. These can cuttently be at unacceptable
levels. You need to be very aware of this as thisissue, as it is well known in Uckfield and will surely impact on the
sale of further residential property in the vicinity of these fields. The wmell are very strong meaning our windows
needs to be kept closed on many occasions and the smell can be overpowering actually making us feel sick at
times. the impact of this can be smelt into the town centre and is sometimes the cause of conversation in the
shops, as people find it most offensive.
Page 233 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631268
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lea
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631265
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Harrison
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All existing trees and hedges to remain. This greenbelt land is rich with wildlife. Birds, bats, and owls to name a
few, must be given consideration because we are living in a rural area. No consideration appears to have been
building close to these fields
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631715
Agent ID
Mr and Miss Hoare / Brooks
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 234 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631054
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Sanders
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
May take plave. I have seen a bundle of wild animals including foxes, dears, badger along the bypass at night,
wild geese & ducks visit the lake & the hedgerows house all types of birds & wild life. The subsoil in the fields is
made up of sand clay & sandstone which doesnt drain very well during prolonged heavy rain all the water drains
off Victoria Football pitch, new barn football pitch & st Philips school sports field all this water enters both and
woods into a stream which continues to join ridgewood stream on the by pass, this is where the flooding always
takes place, it is a flood plain.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631219
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Ling
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
3. All heging and trees currently in situ must remain, to provide wildlife that inhabits this greebelt land wirh
consideration. This has bats, foxes,pheasants and manu other creatures libing on it as you would expect from a
rural area. this wildlife must not be forced out. 4. No consideration has been given on your picture for any noise
attenuation for current residents, althought it have been considered important for the bypass and sewerage
works area. We require this protection to be extended along the 'L' shape of current residential area to provide us
with protection. 5. No awareness or consideration appears to have been given to prevailing wind direction when
directly towards our properties, on the 'L' shape residential area and often means we have to put up with dreadful
smells. These can currently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this as this issue, as it is
can be overpowering actually aking us feel sick at times. The impact of this can be smelt into the town centre and
is somrtimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people find it most offensive.
Page 235 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631962
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 633295
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Jeffrey
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 236 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631017
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Moran
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631282
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whilst due to the lack of rainfall at the moment flooding is not a problem we know by living here that a t certain
times of the year the area close to the road has this problem. Flooding on the site must be a major restriction to
the number of buildings envisaged in these plans. Living close to the sewage works I can confirm that we often
get smells from there especially during the hot weather. the precailing wind from the south west makes this
worse. There have also been times mainly at teh weekends when we get the noise from an alarm system often
going on for 24 hours a day. Builsing works. I therefore ask that this attenuation be extended to protect the
existing properties. In addition a 30 metre buffer zone should be included in the project. It should also be noted
that the normal wind direction is from the S.W. blowing dust over our properties.
Page 237 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631267
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Penfold
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630804
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
3. You should also be aware that there is a line of protected Oak trees which back into our properties in the north
east corner of the site. These are not shown on figure (5.3 SDA) or anywhere else on the plans and should surely
have been pricking up on the detailed survey that you say has already been carried out. 6. All heging and trees
currently in situ must remain, to provide wildlife that inhabits this greebelt land wirh consideration. This has bats,
foxes,pheasants and many other creatures living on it as you would expect from a rural area. this wildlife must
not be forced out. 7. No consideration has been given on your picture for any noise attenuation for current
residents, althought it have been considered important for the bypass and sewerage works area. We require this
protection to be extended along the 'L' shape of current residential area to provide us with protection. 8. No
awareness or consideration appears to have been given to prevailing wind direction when considering this site for
building. The winds come across the land from the direction of the sewerage works, directly towards our
properties, on the 'L' shape residential area and often means we have to put up with dreadful smells. These can
currently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this as this issue, as it is well known in Uckfield
and will surely impact on the sale of further residential property in the vicinity of these fields. The smells are very
strong meaning our windows need to be kept closed on many occasions and the smell can be overpowering
actually aking us feel sick at times. The impact of this can be smelt into the town centre and is somrtimes the
cause of conversation in the shops, as people find it most offensive.
Page 238 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631263
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Xenos
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
All existing trees and hedges to remain. This greenbelt land is rich with wildlife. Birds, bats, and owls to name a
few, must be given consideration because we are living in a rural area. No consideration appears to have been
building close to these fields.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630800
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
You should also be aware that there is a line of protected Oak trees which back onto our properties in the north
east corner of the site. these are not shown on figure (5.3 SDA) or anywhere else on the plans and should surely
have been picking up on the detailed survey that you say has already been carried out. 6. All hedging and trees
currently in situ must remain to provide wildlife that inhabits this greenbelt land with consideration. This site has
bats, foxes, pheasants and many other creatures living on it as you would expect from a rural area. This wildlife
must not be forced out. 7. No consideration has been given on your pictures for any noise attenuation fo current
residents, although it has been considered important for the bypass and sewerage works area. We require this
protection to be extended along the 'L' Shape of current residential area to provide us wirh protection. No
awareness or consideration appears to have been gicen to precailing wind direcion when considering this site fo
building. The winds come across the land from the direction of the sewrage works directly towards our properties
on the 'L' Shape residential area and often nean we have to put up with dreadful smells. These can currently be
at unacceptable levels you need to be very aware of this as this issue as it is well known in ckfield and will surel
impact on the sale of further residential property in th vicinity of these fields. The smells are very strong meaning
our windows need to be kept closed on many occasions and the smell can be overpowering actually making us
feel sick at times. The impact of this can be smelt into the town centre and is sometimes the cause of
conversation in the shops as people find it most offensive
Page 239 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630778
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
us with protection. No awareness or consideration appears to have been given to prevailing wind direction when
dreadful smells. These can currently be at unacceptable levels. You need to be very aware of this, as this issue,
centre and is sometimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people it most offensive.
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This area encapsulates Bothland Wood which is an ancient woodland and also contains Ridgewood Bridge Shaw
ancient woodland which is not clearly defined on the map although this area appears to contain a woodland
buffer. It also contains Ridgewood Shaw. The key principles here should be ro retain/enhance connectivity to
ensure that these area of ancient woodland can continue to function into the future. Key conern here is to precent
the degradation and isolation of ancient woodland. it appears fron the maps resented that opportunities for
creating habitat networks have not been maximised here and it apears that boothland wood will loste some
connectvity through development. This shoud be looked at in more detail. Due to the cariety of habitats here
including gassland and marshy habtats the potential biodiversty interest-including protected species is high this
will need to be very carefully assessed. we agree that tis site has th potential for green networks but would
question whether the maps resented allow for this to be naxmised. As identfied in the report the opportunity
exists for green infrastructure and habitat networs adjacent to the stream. This area could also harbour valued
biodiversity nterest which must be carefully cosider.
Page 240 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630784
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Scott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630784
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Scott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for educational use of the land (figure 5.6 SDA1) option 4 would be considered to be the best
site, as, if this is linked to an extension of the Victoria Park into the field between the "L" shaped current
residential area, it would allow for the school to use the extended park an also create visually appealing and
natural areas for residents along with plenty of fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630793
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 241 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630768
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Usher
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 103542
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
centre and is sometimes the cause of conversation in the shops, as people it most offensive. Bearing in mind all
of the above comments, I require to receive written confirmation from you that our concerns will be taken
seriously and acted on.
Page 242 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 630786
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Watson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 533585
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spicer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 243 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 3b
Person ID 631281
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whilst, due to the lack of rainfall at the moment, flooding is not a problem, we know by living here that at certain
times of the year the area close to the road has this problem. Flooding on the site must be a major restriction to
the number of buildings envisaged in these plans Living close to the sewage works I can confirm that we often
get smells from there, especially during the hot weather. The prevailing wind from the south west makes this
worse. There have also been times mainly at the weekends, when we get noise from an alarm system, often
going on for 24 hours a day. In addition a 30 metre buffer zone should be included in the project. It should also be
noted that the normal wind direction is from the S.W. blowing dust
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Is next to existing employment area and makes sense
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Lorries associated with the employment zone would inevitably use the A22 access/exit to get to the A22 even if
satisfactory access/exit was made via Bellbrook Trading estate which, in any case, is a potential flood zone. This
would mean heavy lorries driving through the residential area north of the access/exit to the A22 causing noise
and disturbance to residents and raising child safety issues.
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is the worst option as commercial traffic would have to travel through new residential areas to reach it, as
well as having an impact on existing residential properties in the Forge Rise area.
Page 244 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Bell brook estate should be expanded.with access through the proposed land area. The sewerage handling plant
is located to the south west of the existing Bellbrook site with the prevailing wind blowing across the site and
indeed across Uckfiield. No doubt carefully thought out and planned when built.The main hosing area is up wind
of the works. Option 1 should prevail and to comment on noise from the by-pass is beyond comprehension. The
road is at the bottom of the valley with the whole housing area to be downwind.and uphill. Double glazing may
help for the indoor situation but nothing on this earth will preventthe bypass noise especially on a fine weather
weekend from being the total back ground scenario. on the position of the poposedhusing a large collection
system will be required to pump up to the existing works or alternatively a new works will required along the
valley and again will be t0 the southwest along possible air contamination o blow into the site and Uckfied.
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. Option 1 relates to the location of employment to the north of the site adjacent to the existing Bellbrook
Industrial Estate. Whilst the benefits of the location adjacent to the existing estate are acknowledged, the SDA
only proposes a pedestrian route to the existing employment area and therefore a new industrial standard access
road will be required from the A22. This will have profound effects on the manner in which SDA1 comes forward,
including the resultant land take of the road and the impact of industrial traffic on residential amenity and traffic.
Furthermore, the location of the allocation would result in the linkage route to the town centre having to run
through new and existing industrial areas. This may deter the level of its usage by reason of the unattractiveness
of the route and fear of crime in evenings and on weekends. The location of this employment land also has the
potential to increase the impact of such industrial uses on the residential properties that lay to the north east of
the possible allocation.
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This would require industrial traffic to travel through residential areas to get to the site. this would impact any new
development and also have a detrimental effect on residents in the existing Forge Rise area. Access to the site
and industrial areas should not come down bell Farm road as this road is very narrow.
Page 245 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This would be our preferred option provided that access to this area can be gained from Bellbrook Industrial
Estate. This would ensure that the two areas are linked and traffic does not need to be routed through the
residential area from the A22.
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This site does place all employment opportunities in a central location at a reasonable distance away from
residential properties. There are already reasonable bus services to the north-east side of Bellbrook Industrial
Estate which complement the rail service. Bus services could be extended to encompass both the new and
existing workplaces. It is likely that such additional bus services will be required when the new Doctorsâ€™
Surgery is built adjacent to Bell Lane. Prospective employees not emanating from the site itself would then have
less need to drive to work especially if the â€˜mainâ€™ access to the site is only by cycle or walking. Whilst it is
accepted that a long access road may need to be provided, there is no essential requirement for any access road
to be through residential areas and a separate road to the employment area could be provided to the south of the
site and along the boundary of the sewage works. Whilst this would involve more land take it would also
discourage residents from travelling to the employment area by car. Whilst there appears to be some concern as
to the lack of visibility from the main A22 impacting on viability, it is suggested that the visible intrusion of
potentially industrial buildings would not be a positive image for the whole development.
Page 246 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 104353
Agent ID
Mr
Kneale
Southern Water
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Although the need for the employment areas to be protected from odour sources is recognised in paragraph
5.20, employment uses that are sensitive to odour should be excluded. Any necessary odour mitigation
measures at Uckfield wastewater treatment works should be developer funded as Ofwat, the water industry
economic regulator, expects all costs to be met from the development and not from existing customers through
increased charges.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Three potential locations for employment development on the site are proposed. Each of the proposed locations
has varying merits depending on different criteria. Option 1 would locate the employment space closer to the
existing industrial area to the north of the site and have better connections to existing development. Option 2
would locate the employment area closer to the proposed access, which is highlighted by Welbeck in their
supplementary transport statement to be key to making the employment element deliverable. Option 3 would
utilise the most visually prominent part of the site which could assist in the marketing of the site for employment
provision. We can understand the importance of the employment development being located close to the access
to the A22 for commercial and transport reasons. Therefore it is considered that Option 2 is likely to be preferable
to ensure the viability of the proposal. This will not however utilise land which is likely to be unsuitable for
residential development due to odour or landscape constraints, thereby reducing the area available for residential
development. In addition careful consideration will be needed to designing the layout of the employment area as
it would be located in an area which includes significant hedgerows and is close to an existing pond, therefore
increasing its environmental impact. The design of the layout will therefore be key in ensuring that the
environmental impact does not become unacceptable and may result in a larger area of land being required to
encompass the employment development within appropriate landscaping, etc. These constraints will therefore
have implications on the development potential of the site. If Option 2 is progressed with, careful consideration
must also be given to the connections with existing residential areas through the site to the employment
development to encourage sustainable modes of transport over commuting by car along the A22. Please see
Section 4 of the attached statement.
Page 247 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The location of the employment option adjacent to the Bellbrook Industrial Estate is not considered a suitable
location for the employment floorspace. The principal reasons are that the employment floorspace would abut
existing residential development to east, limiting the likely range of commercial operators. The location would
also make access difficult. Access cannot be achieved through the existing industrial estate because of the
change in the levels of the land and the need to bridge the disused railway to create a vehicular access. Access
would be from the A22 resulting in a long and unattractive service road across the northern part of the site.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631260
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Endacott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
2. Request for Victoria Park to be extended across land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of "L" shape of
residential land which will be the area most affected by the building wok suggested by the council) by extending
the park, badly needed leisure space will be provided, and current residents will be offered some form of
protection from proposed building strategy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630791
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1) We request that Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise ( base of the "L"
shape of residential land which will be affected the most by the building work suggested by the council) by
extending the park, this will increase leisure space for all the people of Uckfield, as there is currently insufficient
space for this and will also provide current residents with some protection from the intrusion of building
suggestions from the proposed strategy. 2) 20 metre minimum buffer zone taking the entire boundary of the
current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protesct current
residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution.
Page 248 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630788
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1) We request that Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise ( base of the "L"
suggestions from the proposed strategy. 2) 20 metre minimum buffer zone taking the entire boundary of the
current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protesct current
Attachment: no
Question 4a
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Need employment but site land community trust paper affordable units.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Options 1 and 4 are preferred. Ecology Employment options Option 1 would have the least environmental impact,
as it would avoid most of the important existing natural features. Education & Community Use options From an
ecological perspective, any of these options would be acceptable
Page 249 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630796
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. That a 30 metre buffer zone is placed around the entire boundary of the current residential area and that this
area is kept as a green area to be planted with trees and shrubbery. This would protect the existing residents
from noise and pollution and increase leisure space for the new residents of the new estate. This would also
allow any existing wildlife, i.e. the bats, rabbits and foxes to carry on living in the environment that they have
enjoyed for many years.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630795
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
That a 30metre buffer zone is placed around the entire boundary of the current residential area and that this area
is kept as a green area to be planted with trees and shrubbery. This would protect the existing residents from
noise and pollution and increase leisure space for the new residents of the estate. This would also allow any
existing wildlife , ie the bats, rabbits & foxes to carry on living in the environment that they have enjoyed for many
years.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 103670
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Buchan
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We request that the Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of the L
extending the park, this will increase leisure space for all the people of uckfield as there is currently insufficient
spave for this and this will also provide current residents with some protection from the intrusion of building
suggestions from the proposed strategy. 20 metre minimum buffer zone taking in the entire boundary of the
current residential area shown on your your map 5.2 (site appraisal ) as an L shape. This is cital to protect current
Page 250 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631015
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Marchant
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We request that the Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge rise (base of the "L"
space for this and this will also provide current residents with some protection from the intrusion of building
current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protect current
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631023
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harris
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630781
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Horscroft
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. We reqest that the Victora Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise (base fo the 'L'
Shape of residential land which wil be affected the nost by the building work suggested b the council) by
extending the park, this wil increase leisure space for all the people of Uckfield, as there is currently insufficient
space for this and this will also provide current residents with some protection from the instrusion of building
suggestions from the proposed strategy. 2. 20 metre minimum buffer zone taking in the entire boundary of the
current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an 'L' shape. this is vital to protect current
residents from privacy instrsion and noise plllution.
Page 251 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631268
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lea
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631265
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Harrison
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Request for Victoria Park to be extended across land immediately behind Forge rise (base of "L" shape of
residential land which will be the area most affected by the building work suggested by the council) by extending
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631715
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 252 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631219
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Ling
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. We request that the Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge rise (base of the 'L'
shape of residential land which wil be affected the most by the building work suggested by the council) by
extending the park, this will increase leisure space for all the people current residents with some protection fron
the intrusion of building suggestions from the proposed strategy. 2. 20 metre minimum buffer zone taking in the
entire boundary of the current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an 'L' shape. This is
bital to protect current residents form privacy intrusion and noise pollution.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631962
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 633295
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Jeffrey
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 253 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631017
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Moran
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631282
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
My wife and I are an elderly couple who moved to this location in retirement because of the views and closeness
to the countryside of this property. This will now be taken from us! The value and desirability of out properties wil
also drop considerable becausw of the decision to build on the fields adjacent to us. Because our house is at the
same level as the fields, and we only have a small fence to protect us we are now feeling vulnerable for the first
time. This will be made worse by the route of the footpath servicing the proposed footbridge. This is likely to pass
close to out back garden and the existing low fence. What can be done in this matter to help as we no longer
have sufficient funds to build exgra protection ? Also how can you ake sire that our properties are not subject to
subsidence bearing in mind that large machinery could be operating close to our existing boundaries? Another
reason why the field between us and the sewage works should be left as it is
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631267
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Penfold
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 254 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631263
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Xenos
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Request for Victoria Park to be extended across land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of "L" shape of
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630800
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We feel it would be fair to give us the current residents a 30 metre minimum buffer zone taking in the entire
boundary of the current residents area show in your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an 'L' Shape. This is vial to
protect current resdents form privacy intrusion and noise pollution. 10. We request that the Victoria Park be
extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of the 'L' Shape of residential land which will
affected te most by the building work suggested by the council) by extending the park, this will increase leisure
spce for all the people of Uckfield, as there is currently insufficent space for this. This will also provideCurrent
residents with some protection from the intrusion of building works form the proposed strategy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630778
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We request that the Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of the "L"
shape of residential land which will be affected the most by the building work suggested by the council).by
residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution
Page 255 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630784
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Scott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630793
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630768
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Usher
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 256 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 103542
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 630786
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Watson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 257 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 533585
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spicer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution. The land on which our property sits is clay and we are
extremely concerned about the risk of subsidence if building works are carried out close to our property. Our
property has no signs of subsidence, cracks or movement and should any arise while any building works takes
place close to our property we will be taking legal advice Our garden is situated at some 5-6 feet lower than the
fields behind it and we feel strongly that there is a huge possibility that the retaining wall we have in place may
collapse due to weight of works behind it and that the soil from the field will end up in or garden. This is another
reason why we are asking for the Victoria Park to be extended behind our property so that this does not become
an issue for you to resolve. If houses are built behind our property this would result in us being severely
overlooked due to the fact that our house and small garden are situated lower than the current field. For this
reason we are asking for the Victoria Park to be extended behind our property. Bearing in mind all of the above
comments, we require to receive written confirmation from you that each of our concerns will be taken seriously
and acted on.
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631281
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
My wife and I are an elderly couple who moved to this location in retirement because of the views and closeness
to the countryside of this property. This will now be taken from us! The value and desirability of our properties will
also drop considerably because of the decision to build on the fields adjacent to us. Because our house is at the
same level as the fields and we only have a small fence to protect us, we are now feeling vulnerable for the first
time. This will be made worse by the route of the footpath servicing the proposed footbridge. This is likely to pass
close to our back garden and the existing low fence. What can be done in this matter to help, as we no longer
have sufficient funds to build extra protection? Also how can you make sure that our properties are not subject to
subsidence, bearing in mind that large machinery could be operating close to our existing boundaries? Another
reason why the field between us and the sewage works should be left as it is
Attachment: yes
Question 4a
Person ID 631721
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spurgeon
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We were horrified to hear of the intended 1000 houses, offices, factory, a school and nursery, that will be built
behind Forge Rise, Victoria Park etc. adjacent to Bellbrook Industrial Estate (Option 1).
Page 258 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not keen on this option. Worried about extra access from A22
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Buildings for employment south of the treatment works and near the A22 would create a buffer against odours
and noise.
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This option allows immediate access by heavy delivery lorries to/from the A22 without travelling through the
eventual proposed residential area. Buildings making up the Employment Zone will act as a buffer to sound from
the A22 for the residential homes. A good design for the buildings will maximise the aesthetics of the existing
water features and hedgerows and should allow equidistant access to a central area by all the eventual
residents. This would still allow good access by footpath or cycle track to other employment areas via the
northern boundary. A new roundabout would be necessary at the A22 junction with the new development.
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If the development goes ahead this is the best option as traffic would not have to travel through residential areas
to reach it. It would also create a buffer zone between the A22 and new residential areas to decrease traffic
noise. The employment uses would be located within a prominent part of the site which would be advantageous
to businesses located there and should help marketing of the site.Direct access from the A22 would take traffic
away from the centre of Uckfield which already has a congestion problem.
Page 259 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 2 involves the location of employment land to the adjacent to the main access to the A22. Whilst it is
acknowledged that the location close to the new access from the A22 and within the odour control area utilises
land unsuitable for housing, it will potentially result in a prominent location that is visually damaging to the
character of this sensitive edge of Uckfield. Furthermore, the location diminishes the part of the indicative SUDS
location for the site that provides.
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is the best of the three options. Industrial traffic can be kept on the A22 rather than having to travel through
residential areas.
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Agree with the northern half of this option being designated employment with the land considered in Option 1.
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This would have a greater visual impact on the surrouding countryside and divide up the residential areas. This
option will result in greater traffic movements from the A22 with the impact of increased congestion along an
already over-trafficed trunk road.
Page 260 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The location is too discrete from Bellbrook Industrial Estate to take any advantage of the beneficial synergy that
would be possible. It is suggested that employment areas should complement each other and Bellbrook already
has a great number of different businesses in a variety of sectors to make such an isolated area any more
attractive for business. Whilst the outlook would be different it is suggested that effectively being able to provide a
â€˜differentâ€™ offer of employment would require one or two major specialist companies taking the whole site.
In addition, whilst itâ€™s greater visibility is suggested as a positive attribute, it is questioned whether such high
visibility is desirable. The siting and high visibility of this site will give the impression of a ribbon of industrial
development along the by-pass between the Copwood and Little Horsted roundabouts. Whilst it is accepted that
any access road would be shorter, such ease of access from the A22 is likely to encourage more car and less
pedestrian or cycle journeys.
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 631221
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Cunningham
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
this would, in turn, make Option 2 the obvious choice for the industrial /commercial development.
Page 261 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is WSL's preferred location for the employment floorspace as it provides direct access to and visibility from
the A22 which will be attractive to commercial operators. This location will also ensure that commercial traffic
does not need to pass through residential development. Employment floorspace is also the least sensitive use to
any potential odour pollution from the sewage treatment works. Indeed, the location of the Bellbrook Industrial
Estate within 70 Mtres of the works demonstrates that employment floorspace can more comfortably be located
in relative proximity to the works. As noted the required extent of a cordon sanitaire is yet to be determined,
however it is anticipated that the employment floorspace can be located further north towards the treatment
works than Option 2 suggests.
Page 262 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 631260
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Endacott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for industrial use of land (figures 5.5 SDA1) option 2 would be less invasive for current
residents and can be screened off along the by-pass.
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 630791
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for industrial use of the land (figure 5.5 SDA1) option 2 would be considered to be the least
invasive for current residents and can be screened off along the bypass
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 630788
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
invasive for current residents and can be screened off along the bypass.
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Site 2: This is adjacent to the Ridgewood Stream main river and we would require an undisturbed eight metre
buffer strip kept clear of built development. The site is bisected by an ordinary watercourse with an associated
flood zone area. It also incorporates a pond which is a BAP Habitat. This site therefore is sensitive with regard to
flood risk and ecology. If this site is preferred and you take it forward to allocation through the preparation of your
Strategic Sites DPD, an ecological assessment and a flood risk assessment will be required to identify the true
extent of environmental conditions on the site. These requirements should be stipulated in policy and
development design and layout informed by the findings.
Page 263 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for industrial use of the land (figure 5.5SDA1) option 2 would be the best location for ease of
access and would also be the least invasive for current residents and can be screened off along the bypass.
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Preferred options: Option 2 due to close vicinity to A22 for access for employees, commercial vehicles and
customers. Option 2 - There is concern that visibility from the A22 is considered to be an opportunity for business
development for marketing reasons (5.23). There is a poor precedent set by the Bellbrook estate where large
shed as are highly visible from the A22 with no mitigation. Also protection of the natural features, such as the
pond and hedges, which should be retained as part of the GI network may compromise sustainable development
of the area. Education & Community Use options From an ecological perspective, any of these options would be
acceptable
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 630796
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As as far as the industrial area is concerned, Option 2 would prove to be the least invasive and could be
screened off with trees and shrubbery as is the existing industrial area.
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 630795
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As far as the industrial area is concerned, Option 2 would prove to be the least invasive and could be screened
off with trees and shrubbery as is the existing industrial area.
Page 264 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 631265
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Harrison
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for industrial use of land (figure 5.5 SDA1) Option 2 would be less invasive for current
residents and can be screened off along the by-pass
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 631282
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Otion 2 on fig 5.5 would be the best locatio for this part of the project for the following reasons. Access directly for
Lorries and cans etc servicing the site direct from the A22. The will have to travel through the new residential
roads. Access to the sewage works could be accommodated via the Business Park, thus negating the existing
route through residential roads. This will also reduce the need for a lot of the journeys through the town as they
could access directly from the A22.
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 630804
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 631263
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Xenos
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for industrial use of land (figure 5.5 SDA1) Option 2 would be less invasive for current
residents and can be screened off along the by-pass
Page 265 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 630800
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding option for industrial use of the land (figure 5.5 SDA1) option 2 would be considered to to be the least
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Notably Options 2 for employment has been cited to potentially cause a negative environment impact due to
impacts on hedgerows and water bodies. We advise that this option should not be adopted due it its deleteriojs
environmental consequences. These conflict with the objectives of rthe LDF which seek to create and enhance
habitat networks and enhance opportunities for biodicersity
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 533585
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spicer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for industrial use of the land (figure 5.5SDA1) Option 2 would be considered to be the least
invasive for current residents who deserve consideration in this planning process and can be screened off along
the bypass.
Attachment: yes
Question 4b
Person ID 631281
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 2 on fig 5.5 would be the best location for this part of the project for the following reasons Access directly
for lorries and vans etc servicing the site direct from the A22. They will not have to travel through the new
residential roads. Access to the sewage works could be accommodated via the Business Park, thus negating the
existing route through residential roads. this will also reduce the need for a lot of the journeys through the town as
they could acccess directly from the A22
Page 266 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4b
Person ID 631054
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Sanders
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Liable to flooding due to water draining off both football pitches and St Phillips sports field into Boothland woods,
the stream runs down to the pass during heavy rain floods on bypass. Why is Bridge Farm Road used for waste
tankers going through a residential estate rather than a slip road off by the bypass? Was this to prevent a build
up of traffic on the bypass? With the possibility of 1500 vehicles coming off the development, the bypass will
come to a grinding halt. Build North of the town.
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not keen on this option due to impact on Ridgewood
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Not viable for reasons outlined in our comments on Option 1.
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Access would be either through new residential areas or from the Lewes Road both of which would cause traffic
congestion.
Page 267 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 3 proposes the location of the employment area to the south east of the site. This is an inappropriate
location due to the prominence of this part of the site and the landscape impact such a use would have. To locate
employment uses in this area would be visually damaging to the setting of Uckfield and the wider area. An area
of ancient woodland also abuts the site and which would also be under pressure from the adjacent development.
This area should be subject to lower impact uses and the Council should take the opportunity to build upon its
intrinsic visual quality by possibly allocating the area as a possible SANGS or open area. If indeed this part of the
site was necessary for development, this should be solely confined to uses and buildings that can minimise their
impact within the landscape. The statement in paragraph 5.26 â€˜The provision of employment uses in this
particular location would take advantage of the visual prominence of this part of the site, which could assist in the
marketing of the site for employment provisionâ€™ is contrary to proper planning by locating the most damaging
of uses in the most visually prominent location.
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Access to this area of the site is poor. Also this part of the site is high and would be visible from the South downs.
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The southern part of the site should be residential/community
Page 268 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 3 proposes the location of the employment area to the south east of the site. Whilst this would be
accessible from the Lewes Road it is far removed from the existing employment area at Bellbrook Industrial
Estate. This is an inappropriate location due to the prominence of this part of the site and the landscape impact
such a use would have. To locate employment uses in this area would be visually damaging to the setting of
Uckfield and the wider area. An area of ancient woodland also abuts the site and which would also be under
pressure from the adjacent development. This area should be subject to lower impact uses and the Council
should take the opportunity to build upon its intrinsic visual quality by possibly allocating the area as a possible
SANGS or open area. If indeed this part of the site was necessary for development, this should be solely
confined to uses and buildings that can minimise their impact within the landscape. The statement in paragraph
5.26 â€˜The provision of employment uses in this particular location would take advantage of the visual
prominence of this part of the site, which could assist in the marketing of the site for employment provisionâ€™ is
contrary to proper planning policy by locating the most damaging of uses in the most visually prominent location.
Attachment: no
Question 4c
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This site is probably the least practical as it is so far removed from any beneficial synergy being near to other
employment areas would provide. The location would give an â€˜industrialâ€™ welcome to visitors to the town
and if a vehicular access to the employment area is provided then residents and visitors would need to pass
through this employment area to reach their residential areas. As with Option 2 it is suggested that employment
areas should complement each other and Bellbrook already has a great number of different businesses in a
variety of sectors to make such an isolated area any more attractive for business. Whilst the outlook would be
different it is suggested that effectively being able to provide a â€˜differentâ€™ offer of employment would
require one or two major specialist companies taking the whole site. It is felt that the suggestion that siting
employment in this area would allow the housing to the north of the site to aid the regeneration of the town is
questioned especially as there will be no vehicular access to the town from the north of the site
Page 269 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4c
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4c
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is the least preferred location for employment floorspace, due to: - the proximity to existing residential
development - the distance from the A22 - situated in the most visible part of the site, which is more suited to
residential development; - the likely proximity to proposed residential development; and - the distance from
existing commercial occupiers to the north of the site.
Attachment: yes
Question 4c
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 270 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4c
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 3 is acceptable if improved access to Lewes Road is provided. Option 3 - The visual prominence of this
area should not be considered as a desirable criteria for development, particularly business (para. 5.24).
Education & Community Use options From an ecological perspective, any of these options would be acceptable
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Need to avoid the impact of 'the school run' on the new residential area.
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Placing the school and nursery adjacent to Victoria Pleasure Grounds, North West of the site would be the best
option if the Victoria Park was extended. It could then also be used by the school and nursery as well as creating
an appealing, natural area for all residents.
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This site is already haveing cope with the very large number of new homes being stuffed in to the southern area
of the town. a new area for open space play, organised sport or recreation, a green environment should be a
priority with a roof/square meterage tax applied to achieve this. All towns and villages in East Sussex has
suffered this total disregard for expansion of such facilities. Get with it you planners. Education arrangements to
be included within the site for all junior schooling. Secondary schooling should be examinedf with the education
offices to ensure the numbers can be accommodated and if in any doubt a further higher education facility should
be built. All such arrangements MUST be in the planning pipeline at the time of the frist new arrival on the scene.
The recreation areas should be laid out at this time.
Page 271 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 4 relates to the location of community/education uses to the north east of the site. The proposed
education/community use would be incompatible with the environmental effects and public safety issues of
industrial uses. However, this aside it is perhaps the most appropriate location for community and education
facilities as it would could potentially create a linkage with the existing open space and sport facilities located at
the Victoria Pleasure Ground.
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Education and Community are best sited in the middle of the site - Option 5.
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 4 relates to the location of community/education uses at the north east of the site. The proposed
education/community use would be at variance with the environmental effects and public safety issues of
industrial uses if Option 1 is adopted. Access via the A22 will involve additional traffic movements through the
residential areas. On the positive side, this area is well linked to the rest of the town and adjacent to the existing
open space and sport facilities located at the Victoria Pleasure Ground.
Page 272 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The existing primary schools in Uckfield are undersubscribed with one school struggling as it has a major surplus
of spaces for pupils. I have spoken to headmaster'governors of 2 of the 5 primary schools in Uckfield and neither
were aware of any proposal to establish a further school within Uckfield. This does not appear to reflect well on
the effectiveness of prior consultation on the WDC core strategy. It strikes me that consultation should take place
with exisitng schools as to their ability to accommodate additional pupils arising from the new development before
any decision to build a new school is considered. This is particularly the case when the new school is proposed
to be built on currently undeveloped green land with consequent damage to the environment and biodiversity in
the SDA.
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This position isolates the community and educational facilities which it is suggested should be central to the
development. The suggestion that there is some value in being next to existing schools is questioned as is the
proximity to recreational facilities. It is felt that existing facilities may be cited as a reason for not providing the full
level of infrastructure and facilities required by such development and may lead to overuse of the existing
facilities. The opportunities to increase facilities in Victoria are limited and would not be adequate to take into
account the potential significant increase in use. Therefore it is very strongly suggested that this area should be
set aside as public open space and laid out to complement the facilities at Victoria Pleasure Ground. The location
at the edge of the site will encourage more vehicle trips to and from the school rather than encourage walking or
cycling.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 104353
Agent ID
Mr
Kneale
Southern Water
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Although this option avoids development on the part of the site most likely to be most affected by odour issues
relating to Uckfield wastewater treatment works odour mitigation may still be required. Development funded
measures for any odour mitigation required at Uckfield wastewater treatment works are necessary as Ofwat, the
water industry economic regulator, expects all costs to be met from the development and not from existing
customers through increased charges.
Page 273 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The DPD advises that education and community uses in the form of a one form entry Primary School, 60 place
nursery, playgrounds, playing fields and car parking are likely to be required on site. Three potential locations for
the provision are suggested. Option 1 would locate the provision adjacent to the Victoria Pleasure Grounds
making it more accessible to existing residents. Option 2 would seek to create a central hub in the development
making it easily accessible for new residents but more disconnected from the existing settlement. Option 3
locates the education and community uses to the south of the site so that the development has the potential to
retain some of the current open views of the site through the careful location of the school playing fields. Of the
three options we consider Option 1 to be most suitable. By linking the education and community uses with the
Victoria Pleasure Grounds it will ensure the development links with the existing town of Uckfield. It is considered
that this will be of particular importance due to the disconnected nature of the development from the existing
settlement by virtue of the undeveloped land which will separate the development from Uckfield particularly along
the northern half of the development. This will however result in a poorer relationship with the southern element
of SDA 1. Please see Section 4 of the attached statement.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is considered the most preferable location for education and community uses for the following reasons; there could be a benefit in sharing facilities with the Victoria Pleasure Grounds such as car parking as well as
economies in maintenance/security contracts; - activity generated by clustering could support the viability of a
small convenience shop which would benefit new and existing residents; - the location is closest to the town
centre making it a convenient drop off/collection point for residents in new residential areas en-route to the rail
station and centre; and - it would be close to both new and existing residential areas.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631260
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Endacott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for educational use of the land (figure 5.6 SDA1) Option 4 would be considered the best site. If
linked to an extension of Victoria park into the field between the "L" shaped current residential area it would allow
the extended park to be used by the school and create further natural areas and awsthetically pleasing open
leisure space forschool, nursey and residents
Page 274 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630791
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site, as if this is linked to an extension of the Victoria Park into the field between the "L" shaped current residential
area, it would allow for the school to use the extended park and also create visually appealing and natural areas
for residents along with plenty of fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630788
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site, as if this is linked to an extension of the Victoria Park into the field between the "L" shaped current residential
for residents along with plenty of fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for educational use of the land (figure 5.6 SDA1) option 4 would be the best site, as, if this is
linked to an extension of the Victoria Park (I propose extending the existing site across the land immediately
behind Forge Rise to provide Desperately needed additional leisure space for all of Uckfield) into the field
between the "L"shaped current residential area, it would allow for the school to use the extended park and also
create visually appealing and natural areas for residents along with plenty of fresh air and open space for the
school and nursery to enjoy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Options 1 and 4 are preferred. Option 4 - Would be a suitable site for residential development as it is a less
prominent part of the site. This could be considered in combination with the existing sports pitches as in
landscape general comments above which could be located elsewhere in the area subject to topographical
constraints. Education & Community Use options From an ecological perspective, any of these options would be
acceptable
Page 275 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 103670
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Buchan
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site, as if this is linked to an extension of the Victoria Park into the field between the L shaped current residential
area, It would allow for the dvhool to use the exgended park and also create bisually asspealing and natural area
for residents along with prenty of fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631015
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Marchant
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for educational use of the land (figure 5.6 SDA1), option 4 would be considered to be the best
residential area, it would allow for the school to use the extended park and also create visually appealing and
natural areas for residents along with plenty of fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631023
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harris
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site, as, if this is linked to an extension of the Victoria Park into the field between the L shaped current residential
for residents along with plenty of fresh air and open spave for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630781
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Horscroft
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site, as, if this is linked to an extension of the Victoria Park into the field between the 'L' shape current residential
area, it would allow for the school to use the extended park and also create visually appealing and natural area
for residents along with plenty fo fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Page 276 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631268
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lea
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631715
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631265
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Harrison
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for educational use of the land (figure 5.6 SDA1) Option 4 would be considered th best site. If
linked to an extension of Victoria Park into the field between the "L" shaped current residential area it would allow
the extendd park to be used by the school and create further natural areas and aesthetically pleasing open
leisure space for school, nursery and residents
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631219
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Ling
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site as ir this is linked to an extensive of the Victoria Park into the field between the 'L' shaped current residential
area, it would allow for the school to use the extended park and also create visually appealig and natural area for
residents along with plenty of fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Page 277 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631962
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 633295
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Jeffrey
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631017
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Moran
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631282
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 4 on Fig 5.6 would be the best location as this would benefit from the above Park extension, possibly
using some of thee space as play area . It would also give the children the fresh air and natural outlook they
require at that stage of their lives
Page 278 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631267
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Penfold
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630804
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site as if this is linked to an extensive of the Victoria Park into the field between the 'L' shaped current residential
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631263
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Xenos
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Regarding options for educational use of the land (figure 5.6 SDA1) option 4 would be considered the best site. If
linked to an extenison of Victoria Park into the field between the 2L" shaped current residential area it owuld allow
the extended park to be used by the school and create further natural areas and aesthetically pleasing open
liesure space for school, nursery and residents
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630800
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
site as if this is linked to an extension of the Victoria Park into the field between the 'L' Shaed current residential
area it would allow for the school to use the extended park and also create visually appealing and natural area for
residetns along with plenty of fresh air and open space for the school and nursery to enjoy.
Page 279 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630778
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630793
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630768
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Usher
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 103542
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 280 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 630786
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Watson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 533585
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spicer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4d
Person ID 631281
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 4 on fig 5.6 would be the best location as this would benefit from the above park extension, possibly using
some of the space as play areas. It would also give the children the fresh air and natural outlook they require at
that stage of their lives
Attachment: no
Question 4d
Person ID 631054
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Sanders
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Â£55,000 wind turbine being built right on development. Town football pitch right on development if town gets
promoted standard and flood lightinig would be required. Skate Park right alongside which could be expanded.
Noise from Skate Park and wind turbine.
Page 281 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We favour a central location close to access to/from the A22 to minimise the effects of 'the school run' on the
proposed residential roads. There may need to be a slight adjustment to the boundaries shown in order to
accommodate both the Employment area and the Education area in a central position. Pupils residing in Uckfield
should still have good access via footpath and cycle track.
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The proximity of Option 5 to the centre of the site would be subject to the effects of the busy A22 and the
associated vehicle movements and is located some distance from the existing settlement area. The associated
noise and access issues could be detriment to the use of the land and its suitability for such uses. The site is
centrally located and therefore could be more accessible to the housing development of the site.
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This seems to be the most accessible area.
Page 282 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Better access from the south of the site and residential development near Victoria Park.
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The proximity of Option 5 to the centre of the site would be subject to the effects of the busy A22 and the
associated vehicle movements. It is also located some distance from the existing settlement area. This option is
the least accessible by cycling or walking to residents in the existing part of the town.
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
the SDA.
Attachment: no
Question 4e
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The Educational and Community facilities should be central to the development. Contrary to the statement that
the location would reduce options for integration with the wider community, it is strongly felt that providing these
facilities centrally would create a strong focus at the heart of the community being created in the SDA. Neither
Option 4 nor 6 are that close to existing housing and therefore the same argument would apply. Being central
also reduces the necessity for car journeys as it will be more accessible by walking and cycling than if the
facilities were located at either end of the site.
Page 283 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4e
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4e
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The fundamental drawback of this option is that it will sever the site in two as the school and community facilities
will be located at the narrowest point of the site creating a barrier to movement around the development area.
Attachment: yes
Question 4e
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 284 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4e
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 5 as the central location it is most likely to promote more sustainable journeys to and from school (ie noncar based). Option 5 - There could be some landscape benefits if existing intrusive farm buildings are replaced
with sensitively designed development. Earth modelling to create playing fields would have to be sensitive to
landform and views. Education & Community Use options From an ecological perspective, any of these options
would be acceptable Option 5 would appear to provide the optimum location for Early Years and Primary School,
with respect to position within the new development and proximity to existing primary school provision. Sloping
sites are potentially more expensive to fully develop if â€˜cut and fillâ€™ is required to level, or if buildings need
to accommodate changes in levels.
Attachment: no
Question 4f
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
See our comments under both 4d and 4e
Attachment: no
Question 4f
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4f
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 6 is the most appropriate location for such education and community uses, as there is potential to
maximise the retention of the open nature of the southern area of the site and its inherent rural character. The
facilities could also provide potential additional services to the area of Ridgewood which is currently subject to
additional housing being built and has less in the way of services or facilities that the main part of Uckfield.
Page 285 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4f
Person ID 332489
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The southern part of the site should be residential, though perhaps with some small play areas.
Attachment: no
Question 4f
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 6 is the most appropriate location for education and community uses as there is potential to maximise the
retention of the open nature of the southern area of the site and its inherent rural character. It is also readily
accessible from Lewes Road, reducing the traffic impact on the A22. The facilities could also provide potential
additional services to the area of Ridgewood which is currently subject to additional housing being built and has
less in the way of services or facilities than the main part of Uckfield.
Attachment: no
Question 4f
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
the SDA.
Attachment: no
Question 4f
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This site also isolates the community and educational facility and is considered by far the least desirable of the
options set out. Again the site will encourage more vehicular traffic rather than pedestrian or cycle trips.
Page 286 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4f
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4f
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
WSL considers this to be the least preferable location for the employment and community facilities. This is
principlally because it would be remote from a large amount of the developable area of the site, which would
encourage trips by car. It would also be the more remote site in terms of the existing settlement boundary and
community facilities.
Attachment: yes
Question 4f
Person ID 104771
Agent ID
Ms
Winchester
Environment Agency
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Site 6: this is adjacent to the main river and we would require an undisturbed eight metre buffer strip kept clear of
built development
Page 287 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4f
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4f
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Option 6 - Would be favourable if buildings can be located close to the existing built up edge and earth modelling
to create playing fields can be accommodated into the landscape without detracting from views across this
countryside from the opposite side of the valley.
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 107066
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Allt
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Councillors have granted outline planning permission for a business park on the remaining part of the old Army
Camp on the A272 but have refused planning permission for the development of park farm for residential housing
after four years of consultation with local residents who are in agreement. Has anybody considered where the
employees of this new business park will live?
Page 288 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 628503
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
My husband and I strongly appose plans for a proposed footpath/access rout to come through the private road at
Longbury.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630372
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Latta
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We acknowledge that a large scale housing development will happen in Uckfield in the coming years, but are
concerned about the apparent lack of consideration the impact of this development will have on the town. There
is no mention in the background paper on the impact it will have on the health services which are already
considerably overstretched at Uckfield hospital. There seems little emphasis on the effect a 1000 houses plus
commercial premsies will have on the traffic withiin the town at peak times. I did hear a comment that a traffic
survey had been undertaken oustide of the school term, if true this is ridiculous and does not take into account
the real picture. There is no mention of the effect there might be on the proposed extension to the Uckfield
railway line to Lewes. In particular, we are totally opposed to the proposed change to footpath/access route that
currently runs through Shepherds Way to the High Street, to be re-routed through Longbury. Clearly noone has
visited the site as they would immediately understand that Longbury is a provate no through road owned by
residents. Also at the end of the cul-de-sac, by number 10, any access space is entirely taken up by that building.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630374
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Critchley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Longbury is privately owned and the proposed footpath/access is unacceptable and I object to this plan. There is
a footpath already in use a few yards away from Longbury which goes through Shepherds Way and also access
through Victoria Pleasure Ground.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630380
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Bailey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We understand from our neighbours that the proposed footpath/cycle/access route through private developments
at Longbury is correct on the plan. My wife and I understand that this is only a consultation paper at the time of
writing this but if the plan becomes from framework to planning permission we will object with reason to the
proposed footpath through Longbury.
Page 289 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630376
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We live at 10 Longbury. Figure 5.4 shows the new linkage extending an existing footpath from the playing field
adjacent to our property. through our land, then into and along Longbury which is in fact a private road. There has
been no direct communication with us as owners of the property affected by these plans. There is not suffucent
space between the house and the boundary for a linkage to be intoduced. There is a suitable linkage already in
place. Figure 5.3 details an existing footpath, which is not shown in Figure 5.4. This appears to be contradictory
to point 5.5 that states existing footpaths will be retained. With regards to the expansion of South Uckfield by a
thousand homes we have the following concerns Traffic: A development of this size will cause additional
congestion on Uckfields bypass as well as the town centre Water: There is already an official drought for the
South East and building more houses is going to add to this problem. Money should be spent on resolving this
issue before further development is considered. Schools: Uckfield already has spare capacity at primary school
level, however the solitary secondary school is over subscribed. A second secondary will benefit the town more
than a further primary school. Light pollution: As this development is in a currently undeveloped area, thre will be
significant light pollution from this development. Train Services: With the continuing growth of Uckfield, the train
link to Lewes should be re-opened in addition to making the line to London a dual track. This will increase the
number of services to London and also open up links to the south, thereby increasing the employment prospect
for its residents Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition
against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes,
school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on
the current environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will
double the traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already very busy town for example doctors, dentists,
supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our property values and change the entire nature of the estate.
We, the undersigned call on Wealden District Council to improve facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing
another big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)'.
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
A GP surgery with nurse assoistance, maternity unit together with a district nursing facility to be within the site
and up and running at the time if the first arrivals.
Page 290 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The site is considered to be undeliverable as a result of the SANGS and connectivity issues. Whilst it may be
possible to develop part of the site the overall scale of the SDA as proposed by the council and the lack of
flexibility of it presents in terms of deliverability, should be reduced, and unless SANGS issues can be properly
dealt with it should be deleted. The shortfall of housing provision this would produce should be distributed to
other areas within the north of District where suitable site infrastructure can be provided and thus provide the
certainty in deliverability. This would enable the provision of SANGS as an integral part of the SDA and minimise
the landscape impact of the development by retaining the southern area of the site for Green Infrastructure
provision and linkages. In summary, the SDA, which proposes 1000 dwellings and 12,000 square metres of
employment, is not deliverable in terms of the resultant infrastructure that is required and which will not effectively
integrate in any acceptable manner at all within the existing settlement area of Uckfield.
Page 291 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 522011
Agent ID 522002
Mr
Mr
Mayhew
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The South East Plan and the emerging Core Strategy underline the importance of development at Uckfield to
contribute to the overall quantum of housing need within the district. They underline the relatively unconstrained
setting of the town and the benefits of improving the self-sufficiency of Uckfield, which is the best placed of all the
districtâ€™s towns to achieve this. Set against this, it is surprising that the IOSS DPD presents Uckfield in the
unique position of offering no alternative options to the complete development of all of the unconstrained land on
SDA1. The IOSS DPD Background Paper acknowledges that the constraints on the 83ha limits the developable
area to some 51ha. The quantum of development proposed on the site, would amount to some 46.5ha, with the
remaining 4.5ha being required for ecological mitigation and open space provision. This approach results in the
current geographic extent of SDA1 providing no flexibility in the delivery of the proposed development. This has a
number of significant ramifications. Firstly, it prevents consideration of alternative layouts and genuine options on
which parts of the SDA should be developed. Secondly, in the event that further assessment demonstrates the
constraints on SDA1 are more significant than currently anticipated, it will not be able to deliver the proposed
development quantum. Thirdly, in respect of development in Uckfield, the LPA have put â€ãll their eggs in one
basketâ€™. Should problems emerge on deliverability, either in principle, or on timing, the development will fail to
meet the Core Strategy requirements and would trigger a review of the DPD. Fourthly, if the final version of the
Core Strategy increases housing numbers in the District, Uckfield is likely to be the most appropriate location to
accept further growth, and SDA1 provides no flexibility to absorb this increased growth. For these reasons, both
individually and cumulatively, the current geographic extent of SDA1 is too small and provides no flexibility in the
delivery of the requisite growth in Uckfield. These issues are further undermined by the need for the development
of SDA1 to come forward in conjunction with the provision of Suitable Alternative Natural Green Space (SANGS).
There is no provision for these to be provided within SDA1 and no indication of an acceptable off-site location.
This underlines that it has not been demonstrated that sufficient land at SDA1 has been identified to deliver the
requisite housing growth. Whilst it is acknowledged that the SS DPD is seeking to be in accordance with the Core
Strategy, that higher tier document makes clear that it was not seeking to identify the developable limits of
Strategic Development Areas. These are to be considered under the SS DPD. It is therefore incumbent that the
IOSS DPD considers and assesses the comparative benefits of alternative options within a larger SDA area than
has been identified. Figure 5.2 of the Strategic Sites DPD identifies what the Council consider to be the
â€œavailable land for developmentâ€ in West Uckfield, totalling some 83ha. It notes that this is the land that
has been put forward for housing. This is incorrect. Land immediately to the southeast of the area, to the south of
Lewes Road, has also been promoted for housing. This was the subject of assessment in the Wealden SHLAA
(site reference 007/1410). The submitted site area is 5.6ha and the SHLAA concluded the site is both suitable,
available and achievable and at an indicative housing density of 40dph, has a total net dwelling capacity of 82.
There is no defensible planning justification to omit this area from the â€œavailable land for developmentâ€ as
part of SDA1. The site has no impediments to development, either in isolation or as part of the wider SDA land.
The land at Ridgewood House is contiguous with the boundary of the SDA (albeit separated by the Lewes Road)
and provides important opportunities to strengthen the objectives of the SDA to improve the Ridgewood Stream
river corridor, and connectivity to the open space, including the Millennium Green. Ridgewood House
immediately borders Ridgewood Stream to the south and the Millennium Green to the east and could directly
contribute to these aims. As proposed, the size of SDA1 renders the SS DPD unsound. It fails to consider the
extent and developable area against reasonable alternatives (no alternatives are identified); and it fails to be
effective in that it provides no flexibility. On this basis, the geographic extent of SDA1 should be increased to
include the 5.6ha of land at Ridgewood House, Uckfield. It should be noted within the DPD that this site could be
developed in isolation, early in the plan period, as necessary, to ensure compliance with the required timing and
build rate.
Page 292 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
the SDA.
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Whilst it is understood that general options help in the initial decision making process, it is hoped that more
consultation will be undertaken when specific plans are being made and this should be prior to any detailed
applications being submitted.
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 630602
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Brett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We were appalled to learn of the size of this proposed development, 1000 homes, offices, factories, school ,
nursery !!!!! Also the lack of proper public consultation is disturbing - my wife and I run a business in Uckfield and
we keep tabs on local affairs, but were unaware of this proposed development until a neighbour drew our
attention to it. We wish to have a proper consultation so we can register formal objection to this proposal.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630597
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Bentley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We agree with House Building, of course but athat has no interest to a Longbury connection. We are not a
normal road. The makeup of Longbury is the responsibility of the Residents
Page 293 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631941
Agent ID 102504
Mr
Woolf
Taylor Wimpey Uk Ltd and Martin Grant Homes
Mr
Woolf
Woolf Bond Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is clear from the attached statment that Bird in Eye (North), Framfield Road/ Bird in Eye Hill site should be
included withi SDA 1.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 106824
Agent ID 102504
Mr
Sellwood
Taylor Wimpey UK Ltd
Mr
Woolf
Woolf Bond Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is clear from the information attached that the Land at West Uckfield site should continue to be promoted within
SDA 1. The site offers a logical and sustainable extension to the settlement, and could make a positive
contribution to the District's housing requirement, which is currently under review by the Inspector.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631221
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Cunningham
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is an entirely inappropriate size of development for a small country town, representing an increase of nearly
20% in the number of households in Uckfield in addition to the new housing already being constructed in the
town. Furthermore, Uckfield Town Centre Master Plan calls for even more additional housing to be constructed
around the Luxford field area. The town's facilities are already stretched to the limit, particularly road transport
and sewage. The town centre is a major traffic bottleneck which cannot cope with current traffic levels at busy
periods, let alone the increases which will result from these plans. The only reference to traffic planning in the
Town council's plan is to construct a new spur road from the southern access of the town to the Tesco
roundabout. The town centre is small and has little parking now, with little scope to improve it, and funnelling
more traffic into the Tesco roundabout will only make matters worse. During the time line for the development
(2015-2030 - Yes 15 years!!!) there will be considerable nuisance to and loss of amenity by existing residents of
the Ridings estate. This could, in part be mitigated and additional park space be created by extending the Victoria
ground to the north-west, as far as possible. This would significantly enlarge the existing facility and at the same
time provide considerable abatement of the nuisance to the current residents. Ideally, the Victoria Ground would
connect up with a green mitigation belt around the Sewage Works. The quality of life of the current residents of
Uckfield should not be jeopardized by this huge - and in our opinion, inappropriate - development. Further
Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large
development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory,
offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current
environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will double the
traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets,
etc. It will also directly impact on our property values and change the entire nature of the estate. We, the
undersigned call on Wealden District Council to improve facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing another
big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)'.
Page 294 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 104353
Agent ID
Mr
Kneale
Southern Water
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Additional sewerage capacity will be required and development should be coordinated with its provision
Requisition procedures provide a mechanism for developers to provide the necessary infrastructure to service
their site. Section 5.43 should therefore include the following bullet point: Â· Provision of additional sewerage
capacity required to serve the development through the sewer requisition process
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 107720
Agent ID 102592
Mr
Groves
Gallagher Estates
Mr
Groves
Boyer Planning Ltd
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Please see attached statement.
Page 295 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631275
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Dellar
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
With regards the proposal itself, I would argue that building significant numbers of additional dwellings, offices,
factories a school and nursery in Uckfield is flawed and will be det4imental t the town, the local community and
impact the local environment negatively.. Given the location of UCTC, many children already have to walk
alongside busy, noisy and polluted roads as there are no bicycle lanes or traffic free paths available to use;
additional housing and the resultant traffic will increase the already intolerable noise and car pollution in the town,
as residents will not want to walk to the school. It is clear to anyone who has spent anytime observing the traffic
flows in the town that the current infrastructure is already overburdened, there is not enough parking facilities for
local residents and commuters who wish to shop, use the local train station and other public amenities now,
clearly increasing the population in Uckfield by over 20% without a significant investment in local infrastructure is
flawed. Given one of the local schools is already running under capacity, and that UCTC has insufficient facilities
for its current pupils, building another school does not on the face of it appear to b a good use of scarce
resource, whilst there is an argument that the volume of housing will create local demand, there are already
schools in the area that could be developed further. And there does not appear to be any specific detailed plans
to enhance UCTC to ensure it is able to deal with the increased demand. Equally the closure of the Wealden
Centre means that for pupils that are not academic, both now and in the future, there will have no opportunity for
post 16 education except UCTC or outside the town. This too will increase traffic flows on already busy roads.
Any proposed increase in retail development, must ensure that alternatives to the existing monopoly that Tesco
have on Uckfield is broke, and that real completion is introduces, without undermine the current high street retail
stores. A single much larger Tesco store, will over time result in the gradual erosion of the high street. Finally, this
development could indirectly close any opportunity Uckfield has of re-opening the railway line to Lewes. As
building roads, a footbridge, cycle way and houses alongside the old track bed, will raise the bar on the business
case and create more objections, thereby ensuring a much needed facility is never considered. Overall this
proposal is ill conceived and will have a detrimental impact on Uckfield and the surrounding area. It should not
proceed. Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states"This is a petition against a
large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school,
factory, offices etc., on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the
current environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will
supermarkets, etc., It will also directly impact on our property values and change the entire nature of the estate.
We, the undersigned call on Wealden District council to improve facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing
another big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)".
Page 296 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630712
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holmes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I read with horror at the thought of land adjoining the Uckfield Bypass being used for a large housing
development. It is one of the remaining dairy farms in the area with a large enough grazing area to maintain a
200 cow milking herd and I think should be maintained in the interests of food production, which is going to be
vital in a world with a growing population. I also think that Uckfield has not got the infrastructure to want such a
large increase in population. With recent developments in the south of the town and at places like Five Ash Down
and Buxted, it means that car parking areas are full to overflowing at the centre of the town for shopping or near
the railway station and at the Hospital. The water supply is also a worry as this area being supplied by the river at
Barcombe and must be near to danger of over supply and more housing draining into this river would only
worsen the situation. Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a
petition against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000
homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great
impact on the current environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed
development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already very busy town for example
doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our property values and change the entire
nature of the estate. We, the undersigned call on Wealden District Council to improve facilities within our town
Uckfield before allowing another big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)'.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631169
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Delves
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I have grave doubts as to whether Uckfield has the facilities to support such a large development
Page 297 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631260
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Endacott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. We request a 20 metre buffer zone taking in the entire boundary of the current residential area shown on your
map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L"shape. This is essential to protect current residents from noise pollution (which
has been considered important for the by-pass and sewerage works area) and to provide protection from privacy
invasion. Whilst everyone is aware more affordable housing is needed, the combined overall effect of cramming
in high volumes of residents in concentrated areas of lands will be increased noise pollution, traffic pollution,
traffic volume and ever increasing burden on health services which are already stretched. With regard to the
Uckfield railway line, this will have to absorb heavier usage more cars from station users will need more parking,
and where will all these extra cars park? And, will any of these plans involve areas of the old Uckfield railway line,
or interfere with the ongoing plans to re-establish a railway link between and Lewes? The matter of the Uckfield
River having flooded many times, and the area's close proximity (i.e.: Bellbrook Industrial Estate) being on a flood
plain, is in itself reason enough to beg the question: is housing and more buildings in this area a reasonable
consideration? Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition
against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes,
school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on
the current environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 106034
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Flittner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As set out below this is the worse possible site the council could have chosen due to its visual impact and the
effect it will have on the bypass meeting its function as a bypass. The best principle would be to look elsewhere
and spread the houses around a number of sites, also including Maresfield due to the 800 jobs to be created at
the Ashdown Business Park and the lack of adjacent housing to allow workers to live nearby and limit car
journeys. As indicated above this is the worse possible site the Council could have chosen due to its visual
impact and the effect it will have on the bypass. The best principle would be to look elsewhere and spread the
houses around a number of sites, including Maresfield due to the 800 jobs to be created at the Ashdown
Business Park.
Page 298 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630791
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are of the opinion that the entire "consultation process" is flawed for the following reasons. As you are now
aware following the exhibition today, the majority of them members of the public who attended stated that they
were unaware of the proposals to build on this huge area of greenbelt land. We certainly did not, despite us
backing onto this land and therefore the plans effecting us greatly. We were also totally unaware of the above
exhibition and have only been informed this weekend by our neighbours who had apparently stumbled upon this
information. Further to this, I do not believe that Wealden Council can confidently say it has carried out a proper
consultation until it ensures that the public, and certainly those mainly effected have been made fully aware of
what is proposed. This has clearly not been done and this should have been evident to you at the exhibition as I
understand that huge numbers of people spoke to you and expressed both their anger and anxiety over this
whole process. We hereby formally request that a new consultation process is started and the public be informed
immediately of new dates where we can all express opinions and have them listened to and acted on. Even
taking into account the flawed consultation, we notices yesterday that we all only have until 24th February
(13days!) to respond to the information provided yesterday. We have no choice but to respond to these
immediately. In responding we are not accepting this process but are merely wishing our voices to be heard at
this stage so you cannot come back at a later date and say we had our chance to respond and have missed this
opportunity as well! 1) We request that Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise
( base of the "L" shape of residential land which will be affected the most by the building work suggested by the
council) by extending the park, this will increase leisure space for all the people of Uckfield, as there is currently
insufficient space for this and will also provide current residents with some protection from the intrusion of
building suggestions from the proposed strategy. 2) 20 metre minimum buffer zone taking the entire boundary of
the current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protesct
current residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution. Bearing in mind all of the above comments, we
require to receive written confirmation from you that our concerns will be taken seriously and acted on. Further
Page 299 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630788
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Chesson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
aware following the exhibition today, the majority of them members of the public who attended stated that they
were unaware of the proposals to build on this huge area of greenbelt land. We certainly did not, despite us
backing onto this land and therefore the plans effecting us greatly. We were also totally unaware of the above
exhibition and have only been informed this weekend by our neighbours who had apparently stumbled upon this
information. Further to this, I do not believe that Wealden Council can confidently say it has carried out a proper
consultation until it ensures that the public, and certainly those mainly effected have been made fully aware of
what is proposed. This has clearly not been done and this should have been evident to you at the exhibition as I
understand that huge numbers of people spoke to you and expressed both their anger and anxiety over this
whole process. We hereby formally request that a new consultation process is started and the public be informed
immediately of new dates where we can all express opinions and have them listened to and acted on. Even
taking into account the flawed consultation, we notices yesterday that we all only have until 24th February
(13days!) to respond to the information provided yesterday. We have no choice but to respond to these
immediately. In responding we are not accepting this process but are merely wishing our voices to be heard at
this stage so you cannot come back at a later date and say we had our chance to respond and have missed this
opportunity as well! 1) We request that Victoria Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise
( base of the "L" shape of residential land which will be affected the most by the building work suggested by the
council) by extending the park, this will increase leisure space for all the people of Uckfield, as there is currently
insufficient space for this and will also provide current residents with some protection from the intrusion of
building suggestions from the proposed strategy. 2) 20 metre minimum buffer zone taking the entire boundary of
the current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protesct
current residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution. Bearing in mind all of the above comments, we
require to receive written confirmation from you that our concerns will be taken seriously and acted on. Further
Page 300 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631957
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs James
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. You have considered the importance of segregating the new residential and industrial areas but have given no
consideration to existing residents within Forge Rise. Your proposal to locate a factory area immediately to the
west of Forge Rise (Option 1) is totally unacceptable without the creation of a significant buffer and construction
of a means of noise protection. 2. Your suggestion that option 1 would place the new industrial area adjacent to
the Bellbrook Industrial area and thus enable employment opportunities to be available to and accessible to
existing residents of Uckfield is erroneous. A study of the topography would show that the two areas are distinct
and separate. The only existing residents in the immediate area are from Forge Rise and Bridge Farm Road/Anvil
close - the vast majority of potential employees would need to travel through the proposed residential area or to
park in Forge Rise/Bridge Farm Road and walk. There are already major parking issues in Forge Rise and the
concept of it being used by employees for an industrial area to park is completely unacceptable. 3. The most
sensible option would be to place the proposed industrial area immediately adjacent to the proposed access from
A22 Uckfield Bypass and shown as Option 2 on your plans. Option 2 would concentrate employment in the most
accessible part of the site without requiring employees to drive through residential areas and would cause the
least inconvenience, noise, disruption and loss of amenity to both new and existing residents. 4. Any such
development will have significant impact on the already stretched infrastructure within Uckfield. What proposals
are you making for improvements to the highways, water and sewerage systems etc to cope with the influx of
residents to approximately 1000 new homes? 5. Your proposals will impact upon the value and saleability of our
property. What steps are you taking to minimise the financial loss and inconvenience to us? Further Response
submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land
at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current
greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current environment with loss of
open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will double the traffic volumes and put a
great strain on the already very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly
impact on our property values and change the entire nature of the estate. We, the undersigned call on Wealden
District Council to improve facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing another big development like this to
be built against our estate (The Ridings)'.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 632811
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I cannot believe that these plans are being proposed when the infrastructure of Uckfield cannot cope with the
existing levels of traffic, let alone with another 2000 - 3000 vehicles that would be on our roads from the proposed
1000 dwellings. As yet there seems to be no timescale for agreeing and implementing any town development
plans - surely this needs to be done first? I do not accept that this land is the best site for development and given
the opportunity would welcome the chance to discuss this with you. 3.30 metre minimum buffer zone taking in the
entire boundary of the current residential area sown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital
to protect current residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution Further Response submitted as part of a
439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The
proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now
owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current environment with loss of open space and the
loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain on the
already very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our
property values and change the entire nature of the estate. We, the undersigned call on Wealden District Council
to improve facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing another big development like this to be built against
our estate (The Ridings)'.
Page 301 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 521471
Agent ID
Ms
Reith
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
For this reason land should be identified in SDA1 for new secondary school provision, preferably located nearer
to the north of the site for transport links and access to the existing college site. Para 5.4.2 (Secondary schools)
should clearly state that new land and buildings may be required on SDA 1.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 533585
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spicer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The residents of Forge Rise are concerned that the development will ruin Uckfield creating greater stress on the
local infrastructure. Please, as our representitive in Parliament can you take action to prevent this development
taking place, as your constituents are totally against this Council proposal. Further Response submitted as part of
a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West Uckfield.
The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 104109
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
King
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
SDA1 It has been brought to my attention concerning a proposed major development of homes, offices and
factories to the west of Uckfield. The numbers of houses planned is quite staggering (1000) which when taking
an average household calculated conservatively times 3, will amount to a minimum of 3000 new residents plus all
the incoming workers. Such numbers will have an enormous effect on the existing road configuration and
parking. Anyone with knowledge of Uckfield is aware of the new houses built without any attempt to increase the
essential amenities of doctors, dentists, shops, schools, public transport and car parking. As for the wider
implication of such increases in new homes, I personally, am not convinced of the need (apart from the profits of
the construction industry) especially as there are thousands of empty houses throughout the country. In the
knowledge that a great number of people (those that I know) object to the proposal with passion, I hope to learn
that the proposed scheme has been terminated.
Page 302 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631013
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Mahony
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
1. Forge Rise is situated within sight of the sewerage works; I highlight this fact as it seems to have been
overlooked or ignored. I have lived here for over a decade and I am telling you that this is a problem and I
suggest that one of your colleagues or a member of the developers stay here for a time to experience this for
themselves. At times the smell can be overpowering with recourse to staying inside. I would like it explained to
me how this plant is to cope with such increased usuage and keep emissions at a healthy level. 2. Uckfield has a
flooding problem and surely more concrete will increase the risks. It is all very well saying we are working with the
environment agencies but what does this mean. I quite despair of the human race, have we not learnt anything.
We cannot keep working against nature. Then we have the added problem of insurance, apparently the
government at present is facing difficulties with insurance providers to cover properties at risk from flooding. How
Uckfield is to function is beyond belief, it cannot cope with current traffic levels, there is inadequate parking and
doctor's surgeries. The hospital would be overwhelmed to name a few problems, development on such a large
scale can only compound matters. Whatever so-called infrastructure modification are to take place, there is just
not sufficient space to cope with the resulting population increase. I understand the need for housing but became
aware there is already a substantial amount of housing stock that could be utilised without constant erosion of
greenfield sites and it would appear that many new builds are not up to standard, with such small windows that
they are detrimental to people's health. If future developments in this country were really about sustainability
rather than lining people's pockets I might be more optimistic about the future, as a species we certainly know
how to destroy our environment. Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states
'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide
1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a
great impact on the current environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed
development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already very busy town for example
doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our property values and change the entire
nature of the estate. We, the undersigned call on Wealden District Council to improve facilities within our town
Uckfield before allowing another big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)'.
Page 303 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630796
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I understand from one of my neighbour's that 'some houses' were leafleted with regards to the development;
speaking for myself I can confirm that I have not received any information through my door either by way of
leaflets or letters regarding this matter and wonder if you would be able to forward me a copy of this leaflet for my
information. However flawed the consultation process has been, I understand that 'all the boxes have been
ticked' and that the development is to go ahead. Â· That a 30 metre buffer zone is placed around the entire
boundary of the current residential area and that this area is kept as a green area to be planted with trees and
shrubbery. This would protect the existing residents from noise and pollution and increase leisure space for the
new residents of the new estate. This would also allow any existing wildlife, i.e. the bats and rabbits and foxes to
carry on living in the environment they have enjoyed for many years. Â· Subsidence is another big concern for
the residents who have gardens that back onto the field facing the by-pass. Our properties are quite high in
relation to the field (I believe ours is probably a drop of 10-12feet - some are more than this) and I would be
concerned that if building works were to take place immediately behind our property there would be a shift in the
ground and therefore risk of subsidence. I would like to know if this has been taken into consideration and what
plans are in place to avoid this happening. There are many other concerns that I have; i.e. there is no mention of
increasing the medical services, or building another secondary school, improving the roads around the High
Street and industrial areas which always seem to have traffic jams. Further Response submitted as part of a 439
signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The
Page 304 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630795
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I understand from one of my neighbour's that 'some houses' were leafleted with regards to the development;
speaking for myself I can confirm that I have not received any information through my door either by way of
leaflets or letters regarding this matter and wonder if you would be able to forward me a copy of this leaflet for my
information. However flawed the consultation process has been, I understand that 'all the boxes have been
ticked' and that the development is to go ahead. Â· That a 30 metre buffer zone is placed around the entire
boundary of the current residential area and that this area is kept as a green area to be planted with trees and
shrubbery. This would protect the existing residents from noise and pollution and increase leisure space for the
new residents of the new estate. This would also allow any existing wildlife, i.e. the bats and rabbits and foxes to
carry on living in the environment they have enjoyed for many years. Â· Subsidence is another big concern for
the residents who have gardens that back onto the field facing the by-pass. Our properties are quite high in
relation to the field (I believe ours is probably a drop of 10-12feet - some are more than this) and I would be
concerned that if building works were to take place immediately behind our property there would be a shift in the
ground and therefore risk of subsidence. I would like to know if this has been taken into consideration and what
plans are in place to avoid this happening. There are many other concerns that I have; i.e. there is no mention of
increasing the medical services, or building another secondary school, improving the roads around the High
Street and industrial areas which always seem to have traffic jams. Further Response submitted as part of a 439
Page 305 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 103670
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Buchan
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are of the opinion that the entire consrltation process is flawed for the following reasons. As you are now
aware following the exhibition today, majority of the members of the public who attended stated that they were
unaware of the proposals to build on this huge area of greenbelt land until a rogal wedding street party on the
29th April 2011, by which time we discovered we were too late to have our voices heard to object to this.
Yesterday other neighbours stated that were it not for another neighbour putting notices through their letterboxes
they would still not be aware of anything going on. Wealden council cannot say it has carried out a proper
consultation until it ensures that the public is fully aware of what is proposed. This has clearly been not been
done and this should have been evident to you at the exhibition as huge numbers of people spoke to you and
expressed both their anger and anxiety over this whold process. We hereby formally request that a new
consultation process is started and the public be informed immediately of new dates where we can all express
opinions and hve them listened to and acted on. You stated that all the boxes have been ticked and the council
have followed rules etc. On the consultation you feel you have carried out but without public awareness on a
huge scale this is not true. Our properties back immediatley onto this greenbelt land and surely logic must tell you
that if we had been aware of the proposal put forward to build on this land, we would hve voiced concerns
immediately and would not just sit quietly and say nothing. You stated that some houses had been leafleted and
whole groups of people told you we had not received any communication. This process is flawed and immediate
action is needed to begin to start this provess again. Even taking into account the flawed consultation, we noticed
yesterday that we all only have until 24th February (13 days) to respond to the information provided yesterday.
We hve no choice but to respond to these immediately. In responding we are not accepting this process will
proceed butt are merely wishing our boives to be heard at this stage so you cannot come back at a later date and
say we had our change to sespond and hve missed this opportunity as well. We request that the Vitoria Park be
extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of the L shape of residential land which will be
affected the nost by the building work suggested by the council) by extending the park, this will b increase leisure
spece for all the people of uckfield as there is currently insufficient space for this and this will also provide current
residents with some protection from the instrusion of vuilding suggestions from the proposed strategy. 20 Metre
minimum buffer zone taking in the ebtire boundary of the current residential area shown on you map 5.2 (site
appraisal ) as an L shape this is vital to protect current residents from privacy intrusion and noise poulton.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631023
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harris
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 306 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631015
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Marchant
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
aware following the exhibition today, the majority of members of the public who attended stated that they were
unaware of the proposals to build on this huge area of greenbelt land until a royal wedding street party on 29th
April 2011, by which time we discovered we were too late to have our voices heard to object to this. Yesterday
other neighbours stated that were it not for another neighbour putting notices through their letterboxes they would
still not be aware of anything going on. Wealden Council cannot say it has carried out a proper consultation until
it ensures that the public is fully aware of what is proposed. This has clearly been not been done and this should
have been evident to you at the exhibition as huge numbers of people spoke to you and expressed both their
anger and anxiety over this whole process. We hereby formally request that a new consultation process is started
and the public be informed immediately of new dates where we can all express opinions and have them listened
to and acted on. You stated that all the boxes have been ticked and the council have followed rules etc. on the
"Consultation" you feel you have carried out, but without public awareness on a huge scale this in not true. Our
properties back immediately onto this greenbelt land and surely logic must tell you that if we had been aware of
the proposal put forward to build on this land, we would have voiced concerns immediately and would not just sit
quietly and say nothing. You stated that some houses had been leafleted and whole groups of people told you
we had not received any communication. This process is flawed and immediate action is needed to begin to start
this process again. Even taking into account the flawed consultation, we noticed yesterday that we all only have
until 24th February (13 days!) to respond to the information provided yesterday. We have no choice but to
respond to these immediately. In responding we are not accepting this process will proceed but are merely
wishing our voices to be heard at this stage so you cannot come back at a later date and say we had our chance
to respond and have missed this opportunity as well. We request that the Victoria Park be extended across the
land immediately behind Forge rise (base of the "L" shape of residential land which will be affected the most by
the building work suggested by the council) by extending the park, this will increase leisure space for all the
people of Uckfield, as there is currently insufficient space for this and this will also provide current residents with
some protection from the intrusion of building suggestions from the proposed strategy. 20 metre minimum buffer
zone taking in the entire boundary of the current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L"
shape. This is vital to protect current residents from privacy intrusion and nois
Page 307 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630781
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Horscroft
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are of the opinion that the entire'consultation process' is flawed for the following reasons. As you are now
aware following the exhibition today, the majority of the members of the public who atttended stated that they
were unaware of the proposals to build on this huge area of greenbelt land until a royal wedding street party on
the 29th April 2011, by which time we discovered we were too late to have out voices heard to obhect ot this.
Yesterday other neighbours stared that were it not for another neighbour putting notives theough their letterboxes
they would still not be aware of anything going on. Wealden council cannot say it has carried out a propert
done and this should have been ecident to you at the exhibition as hugh numbers of people spoke to you and
expressed both their anger and anxiety over this whold pricess. We hereby formally request that a new
consultation process is started and the pubic be informed immediately of new dages where we can all express
opinions and have them listened to and acted on. You stared that all the boxes have been ticked and the council
have followed rules etc. On the 'consultation' you geel you have carried out, but without public awareness on a
huge scale this is not true. Our properties back immediatley onto this greebelt land and surely logic must tell you
htat if we have been aware of the proposal put forward to build on this land, we would have voiced concerns
immediatley and would not just sit quietly and say nothing. You stated that some houses had been leafleted and
whold groups of people told you we had not received any communication. This process is flawed and immediate
actionis needed to begin to start this process again. Even taking into account the flawed consultation, we notices
yesterday that we all only have until 24th February (13 days!) to respond to these immediately. In responding we
are not accepting this process will proceed but are merely wishing our boives to be heard at this stage so you
cannot vome back at a later date and say we had our change to respond and have missed this opportunity as
well! 1. We reqest that the Victora Park be extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise (base fo the
'L' Shape of residential land which wil be affected the nost by the building work suggested b the council) by
residents from privacy instrsion and noise pollution. Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory
Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed
development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by
developers. This will have a great impact on the current environment with loss of open space and the loss of
wildlife habitat. The proposed development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already
very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our property values
and change the entire nature of the estate. We, the undersigned call on Wealden District Council to improve
facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing another big development like this to be built against our estate
(The Ridings)'.
Page 308 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631268
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lea
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
suggestions from the proposed strategy.
Page 309 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631715
Agent ID
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
residents from privacy instrsion and noise pollution. Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory
(The Ridings)'.
Page 310 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631265
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Harrison
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We request a 20 metre buffer zone taking in the entire boundary of the current residential area shown on your mp
5.2 (sit appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is essential to protect current residents from noise pollution (which has
been important for the by-pass and sewerage works area) and to provide protection from privacy invasion.
Request for Victoria Park to be extended across land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of "L" shape of
protection from proposed building strategy. Whilst everyone is aware more affordable housing is needed, the
combined overall effect of cramming in high volumes of residents in concentrated areas of lands will be increased
noise pollution , traffic pollution, traffic volume and ever increasing burden on health services which are already
stretched. This development will see a huge number of new cars attempting to move around, and through the
town. The parking is already woefully inadequate and the town's roads currently just do not cope with the traffic
now during busy periods. With regard to the Uckfield Railway Line, this will have to absorb heavier usage, more
cars from station users will need more parking, and where will all these extra cars park? And, will any of these
plans involve areas of the old Uckfield railway line, or interfere with the ongoing plans to re-establish a railway
link between Uckfield and Lewes? The matter of the Uckfield river having flooded many times, and the area's
close proximity (i.e. Bellbrook Industrial Estate) being on a flood plain, is in itself reason enough to beg the
question: is housing and more buildings in this area a reasonable consideration? Further Response submitted as
part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West
Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt
land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current environment with loss of open space
and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain
on the already very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our
Page 311 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631054
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Sanders
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
If houses are built along the perameter of Victoria pleasure grounds there will be a constance supply of footballs,
cricket balls and tennis balls in the gardens plus the noise pollution fron these games, a buffer zone will be
needed in this area. There will also be noise pollution from the 50 fast high wind turbine being erected on the
edge of bictoria football pitch this will also need a exclusion zone if Uckfield town football team gett promoted to a
higher dicision they will need stands and flood lighting. I dont need to go into detail about the on the 17th
increase traffice will cause chaos in the town with about 380 public parking spaces in Uckfield plus short term
parking in the high street and in Tesco & waitrose car park, where will all the extra traffice go! with the two
developments still being built on the Eastbourne & Lewes roads I think Uckfield has reached saturation point on
the national news this week southern adn south east water announced there could be more houses being built in
the south east we could soon end up with stand pipes in the streets to get our water. It happened in 1976!! If any
house building has got to happen in Uckfield it must be north at the town or south of the Ridgewood industrial
estate. Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a
large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school,
factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the
current environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will
Page 312 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631219
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Ling
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We are of the opinion that the entire consultation process is flawed for the following reasons. As you are aware
following the exhibition today, majority of the members of the public who attended stated that they were unaware
of the proposal to build on this huge area of greenbelt land until a royal wedding street party on the 29th April
2011, by which time we discovered we were too late to have our voices heard to object to this. Yesterday other
neighbours stared that were it not for another neighbour putting notives through their letterbox they woudl still not
be aware of anything going on. Wealden council cannot say it has varried out a proper consultation until it
ensures that the public is fully aware of what is proposed. The has clearly been not been done and this should
have been evident to you at the exhibition as huge numbers of people spoke to you and edpressed both their
anger and anxiety over this whole process. We hereby formally request that a new consultation provess is started
and the public be informed immedialtely of new dates where we can all express opinions and have them listened
'consultation' you geel you have carried out, but without public awareness on a juge scale this is not true. Our
quietly and say nothing. you stated that some house had been leafleted and whold groups of prople told you we
had not received any communication. This provess is flawed and immediate action is neeeded to begin to start
unit 24th February )13 days!) to respond to the information provided yesterday. We have no choice but to
to respond and hve missed this opportunity as well! 1. We request that the Victoria Park be extended across the
land immediately behind Forge rise (base of the 'L' shape of residential land which wil be affected the most by the
building work suggested by the council) by extending the park, this will increase leisure space for all the people
current residents with some protection fron the intrusion of building suggestions from the proposed strategy. 2. 20
metre minimum buffer zone taking in the entire boundary of the current residential area shown on your map 5.2
(site appraisal) as an 'L' shape. This is bital to protect current residents form privacy intrusion and noise pollution.
Page 313 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631962
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 314 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 633295
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Jeffrey
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large
Page 315 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631017
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Moran
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 316 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 632248
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Moore
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
My Husband and i are totally against the proposals for any development at the west Uckfield site for the following
reasons: There are other housing decelopments on the edge of Uckfield, name Fernley Park and Ashdown
Place, which are not copletely built not yet sold and will no doubt remain so for some time. Houses at Buckwood
Grange are yet to be sold 10 years after the development was completed. The development is too far from the
town centre for people to walk or cucle. Provision of pedestrian crossings of the river, and new foorpaths across
Victoria Playing fields are a nonsense - people wil use their cars. To highlight Uckfield as having a public
transport "hub" is disingenous - there is a railway that is the end of the line, with one train an hour, and a bus
station with a few buses that are never full. This is not a transport hub. The development is too far from teh
station and existing local schoools for people to walk there. If a achool is built on the site, them people will drive
to the school. On average, there will be 1.5 cars for every new house htat is built, and people will use them all the
time for the reasons given above. The infrastructure cannot cope with the traffic volume at present, and will grind
to a halt if 1500 new cars are added. One of the reasons we bought our house was because our house was
because of the unbroken view form Victoria Recreation Ground acoss open farmland to the south downs. Any
decelopment between Victoria Recreation Grounds and the by pass will ruin ths view, our link with our
countryside and sense of connection with the natural world and our environment. these are quality of life factors
that cannot have a price put on them, and once they are gone they are gone forever. The site may not be a site
of Special Scienific Interest, nor a site of Outstanding natural Beauty, but it is a green, Natural open slpave and
as such should be valued and not seen as "spare" "empty" or "available" for decelopment" just because there is
nothing built on it. The Ground is heavily used. Personally, we cisit the playing fields between 15 and 30 times
every single week, all through the year - to walk our dog, to paly at the park, for recreation. there are many, many
other people we see on a regular basis who will be affected by the development - both the sight of it, the noise of
it and probably the smell of it (see further comments below). In summer months, the park is full with cricket and
football and there is little space remaining for families and individuals wishing to enjoy the open space.if anything,
the site should be extended as a green space for the benefit of all uckfield residents. The site is very close to the
water treatment works. In summer the smell form the works can be dreadful and we are unable to open our
windows. We live a mile away. Who on earth would want to live next to it?? The site is very close to the bypass.
we are shielded for the noise as we live just over the cow of the hill, but we notice it immediatley when we visit
the Recreation Ground and particularly Boothland Wood, and yet they are both several fields away from the road.
Who would want to live next ot it? A large fence will do nothing to mitigate the noise, and merely block the view
from the newhouse to any surrounding countryside and who wants to live in an enclosure? The only time the
road is quiet is Christmas day, and if it has recently snowed. Boothland Wood is one of the few sites of ancient
woodland remaining in the Uckfield area. There is already a problem, particularly in the summer months, and
since the skatepart was built, with teenage candalism, litter undrage drinking and fire-lighting. A house estate a
butting the wood would turn it into a wasteground and a no-go area, whereas at the moment it is an oasis of
calm, birdsong leaves to kick thrugh and squirrels for my dog to chase. Once this wood as gone, or has been
enclosed by development, i is gone or ruined for ever There are up to 15 empty business properties on Bellbrook
Industrial Estate. There is absolutely no need for a further development of business units. If employers wish to
come o Uckfield, They can have their pick of existing units or empty units on the High Street. A perusal of any
edition of the Friday Ad will show that the only other emploment options in uckfield are in the care sector, not light
industrial. There are falling rolls within the existing promary schools in Uckfield. However, the secondary school is
overflowing from its site and desperately needs redevelopment and expansion
Page 317 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631282
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The majority of the people on the estate I have spoken to feel strongly those improvements should be made to
the town infratructure before such a major housing project starts. this should include addition Doctors surgeries,
Dentist surgeries, before school nurseries, secondary school acconnodation, increase to number of car parking
spaces, road improvements etc. You will be building on a green field site with the subsequent loss of wildlife etc.
there will also be athe loss of working farm supplyig milk/meat etc. At a time when we are being told that there will
be a lack of home produced food in the not too distant future. The Victoria Park should be extended down across
the field at the back of Forge Rise. This will give the existing residents, together with the future increase in
population, imprived leisure space to enjoy. It will also act as a buffer zone for the existing houses. The is no
other way that the park can be extended in the future as the new wind turbine being proposed by Uckfield T.C will
obstruct access and views to the south edge of the park There is a water shortage at the moment and for the
oncoming spring/summer these will be made worse. This developemt and others will only make these shortages
worse in the years to come unless answer are found. Further Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory
(The Ridings)'.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 106660
Agent ID
Mr
Ankers
South Downs Society
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We also note the potential development of a significant number of houses in the Uckfield area. This would serve
to add weight to the case for the reinstatement o the Uckfield to Lewes railway line, a project supported in
principle by this society. We welcome the council's commitment to the protection of a route for this railway
Page 318 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 631367
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
DodÃ©
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 630270
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Tuffley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 105733
Agent ID
Mr
Nock
The Hobby Box
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 319 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 103473
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Davey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 106789
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Reed
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 104258
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Miller
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 320 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 631721
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spurgeon
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 634192
Ms & Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mayhew
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 321 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 103320
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 322 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631267
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Penfold
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 323 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630804
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
I am of the opinion that the entire consultation process is flawed for the following reasons. As you are aware
to respond and hve missed this opportunity as well! 1. I am very worried about my property, as we have a drop at
the back of our garden and fear if you move in big machinery to build we could suffer wih subsidence. So I and
other neighbours are asking that you keep our field behind our property as greenbelt land so protecting our
properties. 2. I also fear the security of my property as at the moment we have a cery low fence which can be
easily climbed. Also we will have to change our bathroom window as at the moment we have a clear window to
enjoy the views which will have to be changed to fronsted if people are be be directly in our garden. 4. This
development will have a great impact on the current environment wil loss of open greenbelt space and the loss of
wildlife habitat. the prososed development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already
very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. 5. it will also directly impact on our property
values and change the entire nature of the estate. 9. We feel it would be fair to give us the current residents a 30
(site appraisal) as an 'L' Shape. This is vital to protect current residents from provacy intrusion and noise
pollution. 10. We request that the Victoria Park be extended across the land immediatel behind Forge Rise (base
of the 'L' Shape of residential land which will be affected the most by the building work suggested by the council)
by extended the park, this will increase leisure space for all the people of Uckfield, as there is currently
insufficient space for this. This will also provide also provide current residents with some protection formthe
imtrusion of building woeks from the proposed strategy. Bearing in mind all of the above comments, we require to
receive written confirmation from you that out convers will be taken seriously and acted on. Response submitted
as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West
Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt
land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current environment with loss of open space
and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain
on the already very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our
Page 324 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630800
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Riley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
to respond and hve missed this opportunity as well! 1. I am very worried about my property, as we have a drop at
the back of our garden adn fear if you move in big machinery to build we could suffer with subsidence. So I and
other neighbours are asking that you keep our gield behind our property as greenbelt and so protecting our
properties. 2. I also fear the security of my property as as the moment we have a very low fence which can be
easily climbed. Also we will have to change our bathroom window as at the moment we have a clear window to
enjoy the views which will have to be changed to frosted if people are to be directly in our garden. 4. This
development will have a great impact on the current ecvironment will loss of open greenbelt space adn the loss of
very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc 5. It will also directly impact on out property
values and change the entire nature of the estate. 9. We feel it would be fair to give us the current residents a 30
)site appraisal) as an 'L' Shape. this is vital to protect current residents form privacy intrusion adn noise pollution.
the intrusion of building suggestions from the proposed strategy. We would like to also be informed o fhow you
are intending to deal with the extra population to Uckfield? As currently the roads, dentist, doctor, etc are already
strggling with the increase of people and cars, which the recent development currently veing built have brought to
Uckfield. Bearing in mind all of the above coments, we require to receive wrritten confirmation form you that our
concerns will be taken seriously and acted on. Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which
states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to
provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will
have a great impact on the current environment with loss of open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The
proposed development will double the traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already very busy town for
example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly impact on our property values and change the
entire nature of the estate. We, the undersigned call on Wealden District Council to improve facilities within our
town Uckfield before allowing another big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)'.
Page 325 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631263
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Xenos
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We request a 20metre buffer zone taking in the entire boundary of the current residential area shown on your
map 5.2 (site appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is essential to protect current residents from noise pollution ( which
has been considered important for the by-pass and sewerage works area) and to provide protection from privacy
invasion Request for Victoria Park to be extended across land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of "L" shape
of residential land which will be the area most affected by the building work suggested by the council) by
extending the park, badly needed leisure space will be provided, and current residents will be offered some form
of protection from proposed building strategy. Whilst everyone is aware more affordable housing is needed, the
combined overall effect of cramming in high volumes of residents in concentrated areas of lands will be increased
noise pollution, traffic pollution, traffic volume and ever increasing burden on health services which are already
stretched. This development will see a huge number of new cars attempting to move around, and through the
town. The parking is already woefully inadequate and the town's roads currently just do not cope with the traffic
now during busy periods. With regard to the Uckfield Railway line, this will have to absorb heavier usage, more
cars from station users will need more parking, and where will all these extra cars park? And, will any of these
plans involve areas of the old Uckfield railway line or interfere with the ongoing plans to re-establish a railway link
between Uckfield and Lewes? The matter of the Uckfield River having flooded many times, and the area's close
proximity (i.e: Bellbrook Industrial estate) being on a flood plain, is in itself reason enough to beg the question: is
housing and more buildings in this area a reasonable consideration?
Page 326 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630778
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
aware following the exhibition today, the majority of the members of public who attended stated that they were
unaware of the proposals to build on this huge area of greenbelt land until a royal wedding street party on the
consultation until it ensures that the public is fully aware of what is proposed. This has clearly not been done and
this should have been evident to you at the exhibition as huge numbers of people spoke to you and expressed
both their anger and anxiety over this whole process. We hereby formally request that a new consultation
process is started and the public be informed immediately of new dates where we can all express opinions and
have them listened to and acted on. You stated that all the boxes have been ticked and the council have followed
rules etc. on the "consultation" you feel you have carried out, but without public awareness on a huge scale this is
not true. Our properties back immediately onto this greenbelt land and surely logic must tell you that if we had
been aware of the proposal put forward to build on this land, we would have voiced concerns immediately and
would not just sit quietly and say nothing. You stated that some houses had been leafleted and whole groups of
people told you we had not received any communication. This process is flawed and immediate action is needed
to begin to start this process again. Even taking into account the flawed consultation, we notices yesterday that
we all only have until 24th February (13days!) to respond to the information provided yesterday. We have no
choice but to respond to these immediately. In responding we are not accepting this process will proceed but are
merely wishing our voices to be heard at this stage so you cannot come back at a later date and say we had our
chance to respond and have missed the opportunity as well! 4G and 4A We request that the Victoria Park be
extended across the land immediately behind Forge Rise (base of the "L" shape of residential land which will be
affected the most by the building work suggested by the council).by extending the park, this will increase leisure
space for all the people of Uckfield, as there is currently insufficient space for this and will also provide current
residents with some protection from the intrusion of building suggestions from the proposed strategy. 30 metre
minimum buffer zone taking in the entire boundary of the current residential area shown on your map 5.2 (site
appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protect current residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution.
Page 327 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 522134
Agent ID
Sir/Madam
Natural England
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As with all options we advise that they are approriately located with a view to minimising environmental impact.
Sands-ashdown forest sepvial area of conservation (SAC) and special protection area (SPA) due to the nature
and location of this proposal and the potential for an increase in visitor pressure and associated impact on
Ashdown Forest SPA and SAC it is imperitive that SANGS will need to be provided should this optio be adopted.
Natural England is converned that as yet no SANGS have been suggested for this site but they will be a key
requirement should the site go forward. SANGS have to be fit for purpose and will need to meet particular
requirements for this issue. We advise that this is considered at the earliest opportunity.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630784
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Scott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
residents with some protection from the intrusion of building suggestions from the proposed strategy. Further
Page 328 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630793
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 329 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630768
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Usher
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 330 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 103542
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Ward
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
both their anger and anxiety over this whole process. I hereby formally request that a new consultation process is
started and the public be informed immediately of new dates where we can all express opinions and have them
listened to and acted on. You stated that all the boxes have been ticked and the council have followed rules etc.
on the "consultation" you feel you have carried out, but without public awareness on a huge scale this is not true.
Our properties back immediately onto this greenbelt land and surely logic must tell you that if we had been aware
of the proposal put forward to build on this land, we would have voiced concerns immediately and would not just
sit quietly and say nothing. You stated that some houses had been leafleted and whole groups of people told you
we had not received any communication. This process is flawed and immediate action is needed to begin to start
this process again. Please can you provide proof of the consultation you claim to have made. I require date,
details of the method of publication and copies of what was released. If this is not proved to my satisfaction, I and
my neighbours will take further action Even taking into account the flawed consultation, we notices yesterday that
Page 331 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 630786
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Watson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protect current residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution
Page 332 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 533585
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spicer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
chance to respond and have missed the opportunity as well! The land on which our property sits is clay and we
are extremely concerned about the risk of subsidence if building works are carried out close to our property. Our
property has no signs of subsidence, cracks or movement and should any arise while any building works takes
place close to our property we will be taking legal advice 4G and 4A We request that the Victoria Park be
appraisal) as an "L" shape. This is vital to protect current residents from privacy intrusion and noise pollution. The
land on which our property sits is clay and we are extremely concerned about the risk of subsidence if building
works are carried out close to our property. Our property has no signs of subsidence, cracks or movement and
should any arise while any building works takes place close to our property we will be taking legal advice Our
garden is situated at some 5-6 feet lower than the fields behind it and we feel strongly that there is a huge
possibility that the retaining wall we have in place may collapse due to weight of works behind it and that the soil
from the field will end up in or garden. This is another reason why we are asking for the Victoria Park to be
extended behind our property so that this does not become an issue for you to resolve. If houses are built behind
our property this would result in us being severely overlooked due to the fact that our house and small garden are
situated lower than the current field. For this reason we are asking for the Victoria Park to be extended behind
our property. Bearing in mind all of the above comments, we require to receive written confirmation from you that
each of our concerns will be taken seriously and acted on. Further Response submitted as part of a 439
Page 333 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631281
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The majority of the people on the estate I have spoken to, feel strongly those improvements should be made to
the town infrastructure before such a major housing project starts. This should include additional Doctors
surgeries, Dentists surgeries, before school nurseries, secondary school accommodation, increase to number of
car parking spaces, road improvements etc. You will be building on a green field site with the subsequent loss of
wildlife etc. there will also be the loss of a working farm supplying milk/meat etc. at a time when we are being told
that there will be a lack of home produces food in the not too distant future. There is a water shortage at the
moment and for the oncoming spring/summer these will be made worse. This development and others will only
make these shortages worse in the years to come unless answers are found. The Victoria Park should be
extended down across the field at the back of Forge Rise. This will give the existing residents, together with the
future increase in population, improved leisure space to enjoy. It will also act as a buffer zone for the existing
houses. There is no other way that the park can be extended in the future as the new wind turbine being
proposed by Uckfield T.C will obstruct access and views to the south edge of the park. Further Response
submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states 'This is a petition against a large development at Land
at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory, offices, etc, on current
greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current environment with loss of
open space and the loss of wildlife habitat. The proposed development will double the traffic volumes and put a
great strain on the already very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets, etc. It will also directly
impact on our property values and change the entire nature of the estate. We, the undersigned call on Wealden
District Council to improve facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing another big development like this to
be built against our estate (The Ridings)'.
Attachment: yes
Question 4g
Person ID 631721
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Spurgeon
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We moved from Croydon to Uckfield some 4 years agao to move to a town in Sussex and get back to living in
England again without having to put up with houses squeezed in every available space as is the case in
suburban areas. The town at the moment is struggling to cope with the new estates that have been built & the
hundreds of new residents occupying the houses. There's increasing pressure on doctors and the lack of
dentists, parking busier roads, water, supermarkets etc.
Page 334 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638134
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Howe
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
4g Response submitted as part of 439 Signatory Petition, which states:" This is a petition against a large
development at land at West Uckfield. The proposed development is to provide 1000 homes, school, factory,
offices, etc. on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current
traffic volumes and put a great strain on the already very busy town for example doctors, dentists, supermarkets
undersigned call on Wealden District council to improve facilities within our town Uckfield before allowing another
big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)"
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638136
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Green
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638138
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Rumsey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 335 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638141
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Laing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638143
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Miller
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638144
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Elsey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 336 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638149
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Mitchell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638152
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Collier
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638155
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Green
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 337 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638161
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
D'Acessio
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638163
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Reed
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638167
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
King
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 338 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638169
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Owen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638171
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Dean
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638173
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Newman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 339 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638176
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Neville
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638181
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Cook
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638184
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Kanasevica Rose
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 340 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638186
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Fairweather
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638190
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Lewis
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638193
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Ellen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 341 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638194
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Dadswell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638199
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ellis
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638200
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
McAlister
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 342 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638203
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Scott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638206
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Hunt
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638210
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Clarke
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 343 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638213
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Thorogood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638215
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Dunham
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638217
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Brown
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 344 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 645279
Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hanson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638223
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Garden
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638225
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Winsbury
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 345 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638227
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Bush
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638229
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Quay
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638231
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Trant
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 346 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638233
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Reeve
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638236
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Payne
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638238
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Martin
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 347 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638240
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Simms
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638243
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Hill
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638244
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Hathaway
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 348 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638246
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Scott
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638249
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Markwick
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638252
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Page
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 349 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638254
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Pettit
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638257
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Greenwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638259
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Jeffrey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 350 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638261
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Eastwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638264
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Mercer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638267
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Potts
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 351 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638269
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Holmes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638273
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Gibbins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638275
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ford
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 352 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638277
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lund
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638280
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Woolgar
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638282
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Hungerford
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 353 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638283
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Woollard
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638284
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Mark
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638285
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mann
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 354 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638286
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Griffiths
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638645
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Eastwood
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Response submitted as part of 439 Signatory Petition, which states:" This is a petition against a large
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638647
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Horscroft
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 355 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638651
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Crabtree
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638652
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Lynch
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638656
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Watts
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 356 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638660
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638662
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Tims
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638665
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Harman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 357 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638667
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Soult
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638669
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Foot
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638673
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Simms
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 358 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638674
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Belford
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638676
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hendon
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638677
Mr & Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Juddfry & Joyce
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 359 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638678
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Ford
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638679
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Corner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638680
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Watts
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 360 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638683
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Higgins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638684
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Higgins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638687
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Crossfield
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 361 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638688
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Mitchell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638689
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Page
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638691
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Mitchell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 362 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638693
Agent ID
Sir/Madam Pearce
Fuller & Scott Funeral Directors
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638694
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
O'Halloran
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638695
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Taylor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 363 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638697
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Young
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638699
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Ross
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638701
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Hooker
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 364 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638704
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Driscoll
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638706
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Soper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638708
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Bishop
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 365 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638709
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Bate
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638710
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Pert
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638711
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Cooper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 366 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638713
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638714
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Barlow
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638715
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Ely
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 367 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638716
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Bellamy
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638717
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Dode-Angel
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638718
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Brookes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 368 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638720
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Hanson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638721
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Bedwell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638722
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Dow
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 369 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638723
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Andrews
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638724
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Rose
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638725
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Tester
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 370 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638726
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638768
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Webb
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638769
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Drury
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 371 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638771
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Beer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638772
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
North-Row
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638773
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hickford
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 372 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638774
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Duffy
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638775
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Garroch
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638776
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Rose
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 373 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638777
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Christian
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638779
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Di Silva
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638781
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Holloway
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 374 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638782
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Grundy
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638786
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Voice
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638787
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Freeman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 375 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638789
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Rathborn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638796
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Kennedy
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638797
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Leary
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 376 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638799
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Campbell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638800
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Wallis
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638801
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Beeson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 377 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638803
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Snelling
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638808
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pidgeon
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638810
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Kennedy
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 378 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638812
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Campbell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638814
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Reed
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638816
Mesdames
Sound
Agent ID
Kennedy
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 379 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638819
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Standing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638947
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Mileham
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638951
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Brown
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 380 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638952
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Carn
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638954
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Thomas
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638956
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Irwin
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 381 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638959
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Barden
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638961
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
John
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638963
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Barber
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 382 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638966
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Levett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638968
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Carter
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638974
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Widerstein
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 383 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638976
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Tindley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638978
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Foot
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638979
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Bolingbroke
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 384 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638982
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
O'Connor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638983
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Benjamin
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638986
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Tremlett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 385 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638988
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Baldwin
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638991
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Slaughter
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638993
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Marsh
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 386 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638997
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Parham
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 632248
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Moore
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639012
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Christian
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 387 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639015
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Bignell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639017
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Carter
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639019
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Child
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 388 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639021
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Bridger
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639242
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Bennett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639243
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Dowding
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 389 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639245
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Hussey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639250
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Martin
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639253
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Dew
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 390 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639255
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Cowing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639257
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Moor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639258
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mills
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 391 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639259
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Allen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639260
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Holman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Response submitted as part of a 439 signatory Petition, which states"This is a petition against a large
offices etc., on current greenbelt land now owned by developers. This will have a great impact on the current
etc., It will also directly impact on our property values and change the entire nature of the estate. We, the
big development like this to be built against our estate (The Ridings)".
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639262
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Goosens
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 392 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639263
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Harris
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639264
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Stevens
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639267
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Jackson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 393 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639269
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Griffith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639270
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Ellen-Rawlings
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639273
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 394 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639275
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Reed
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639277
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Brook
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639279
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Schlieder
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 395 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639281
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Aldred
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639282
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Heel
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639283
Mssrs
Parsons
Sound
Agree
Agent ID
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 396 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639320
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Holden
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639322
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Mitchell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639323
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Richards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 397 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639324
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Lear
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639325
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Smale
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639326
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Franklin
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 398 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639327
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Perris
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639329
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639332
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Simms
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 399 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639334
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Hopkins
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639335
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Merchant
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639336
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Stevenson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 400 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639338
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Galtress
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639339
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
McKellen
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639383
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Schoeman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 401 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639384
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Sankey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639408
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Lincs
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639409
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
King
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 402 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639411
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Warren
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639412
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Slaughter
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639415
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Johnson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 403 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639417
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Hoffman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639419
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Wanless
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639422
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Moger
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 404 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639424
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Brooker
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639427
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Jakeman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639429
Mr & Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Lloyd & McKellow
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 405 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639430
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Rainbow
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639432
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Spurgeon
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639435
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Hughes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 406 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Poulter
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639438
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Mugridge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639439
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Connaughton
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 407 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639440
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Ware
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639441
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Reeves
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639444
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Simms
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 408 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639445
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Handel
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639446
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Ridgley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639448
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Cooper
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 409 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639450
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Coles
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639453
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Pagett
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639457
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 410 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639458
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Crawley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639459
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639460
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Ball
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 411 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 638702
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Hudson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639462
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Gladman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639476
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 412 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639478
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Watt
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639479
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Cartes
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639480
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Wyatt
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 413 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639481
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Garner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639482
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Bulmer
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639484
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Leppard
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 414 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639485
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Leppard
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639496
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639498
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Everest
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 415 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639500
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Payton
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639501
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Snell
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639503
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Saint
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 416 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639505
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Roberts
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639507
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Jarman
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639508
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Reid
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 417 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639511
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Morgan
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639514
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Burgoyne
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639524
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Buchan
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 418 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639525
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Petit
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639527
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Turner
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639529
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Long
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 419 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639531
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Baldwin
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639534
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Iles
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639535
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Brayley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 420 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639537
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Neal
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639538
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Watson
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639539
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Smith
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 421 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639540
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Blackford
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639541
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Snelgrove
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639542
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Richards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 422 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639543
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Luxford
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639545
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
White
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639546
Ms
Sound
Agent ID
Spacey
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Page 423 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639548
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Brooker
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 4g
Person ID 639455
Sir/Madam
Sound
Agent ID
Richards
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Proportion is too high. Better to be nearer 20%
Page 424 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We think the existing legal requirement for new large development sites of 30% affordable homes is adequate.
As stated earlier the 30% requirement, coupled with the 20% small homes provision, reflects the demographic
requirement in this area.
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We think that the legal minimum requirement of 30% is more than adequate .As these homes tend to be smaller,
this would mean an increase in the number of properties which would result in greater pressure on the local
infrastructure.
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is part of our social responsibilities and an absolute necessity for the provision of housing for those who
require help in attaining an acceptable living standard. I agree with 40% ratio. The overall population is receiving
around 250,000 in numbers wit most arrivals very willing to work. This percetage will go a long way to getting to
the reasonble standards necessary. However this must be supported by the infra structure that goes with such
projects. Not as has been the very poor town and village planning design that has existed within the area up to
now.
Page 425 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There should be no requirement for a minimum provision of affordable housing on this site or on any other site in
the District, whether within an SDA or not. The appropriateness of provision on all sites depends upon economic
viability and there is no guarantee that any particular site could provide â€ãt leastâ€™ a certain level of
affordable housing and remain viable. That should be a test that is undergone at the time of consideration of a
planning application. The only provision in the Core Strategy should be that affordable housing will be required,
and an overall figure for the plan area should be set out, but should be subject to detailed testing at the
application stage. The councilâ€™s assertion in paragraph 7.12 of the Submission Core strategy that it has
commissioned specialist research on the viability of housing that shows that â€œthe potential viability of housing
sites in the central and northern parts of the District could support a higher proportion of affordable housing than
in most locations in the southâ€ is a significant generalisation that does not relate to viability, but to overall
housing market comparison. To base policy requirements on â€œpotential viabilityâ€ and on such
generalisations cannot be acceptable. In addition there is no indication in the Wealden Affordable Housing
Viability Statement as to the potential effect of additional requirements for infrastructure provision on individual
sites, and the council has not sought in the Core Strategy to seek to quantify the likely levels of such provision,
either collectively or on a site by site basis. Such additional infrastructure requirements could have a significant
effect on the potential achievable level of affordable housing. The Wealden Affordable Housing Viability
Statement itself states (page 11) â€œWith an ambitious but realistic target in place, the Council would be
expected to retain the flexibility to deal with individual schemes where the specific circumstances justify, on
viability grounds, a reduced requirement for affordable housing (and/or an alternative mix of affordable housing
and/or the use of grant if available).â€ In an overall sense therefore there is no justification for a more specific
approach to the provision of affordable housing for individual SDAâ€™s through the Core Strategy. A general
policy defining an overall level of affordable requirement, with a provision that the final level is a matter for
individual circumstances at the time of detailed proposals for development, is sufficient at this stage. The
provision of affordable housing is essentially linked to need and viability and these are key considerations. In
determining the most appropriate locations and numbers of affordable housing units that will come forward as
part of the Strategic Sites DPD there is no justification to seek to adjust the provision on a site by site basis. That
would potentially prevent sites coming forward at an appropriate time and lead to delays in delivery of housing.
The very high level of housing need that the council has identified will not be met by the level of housing provision
required and the sites allocated in the SSDPD will in any case fall very significantly short of meeting housing
requirements. It is therefore essential that there should be no â€˜brakeâ€™ on delivery. A provision of 35%
should be carried forward, with confirmation that actual final levels of affordable housing will depend upon
detailed individual consideration of sites. That will provide a necessary element of certainty whilst allowing
flexibility through negotiations in relation to specific sites that may allow for a greater (or lesser) provision
depending on economic viability and other contributions that may be sought. It is considered that this should be
the same for all sites within the DPD as it sets a baseline that can be adjusted as required whilst providing a level
of certainty that will contribute to bringing sites, and affordable housing, forward.
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Affordable housing should be available for Homeowners and not Buy to Let entrepreneurs.
Page 426 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 334647
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
100%
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 334812
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Proportion of affordable housing should be defined on need and viability
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 107739
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It should maximum it to 100%
Page 427 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It is acknowledged that Uckfield is different to the other towns in the District in that it is the only town to have a
higher percentage of young people than â€õldâ€™. It is also acknowledged that there are a greater number of
larger houses in the north of the District and that properties in general are expensive. Accordingly the need for
more smaller and affordable housing in the town is greater than in any other town in the District and therefore the
highest practical percentage of affordable homes should be encouraged.
Attachment: no
Question 5a
Person ID 631191
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Oakley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
The document is ambiguous in terms of whether affordable housing and small houses are the same category. I
believe that the legal requirement is for a minimum of 30% affordable homes, which I feel is more than adequate
provision. Demand in Uckfield is largely for 3-4 bedroom private housing. The proportion of housing type should
be determined by actual demand and not by some arbitrary figure. The SSDPD states that affordable housing is
more economically viable to the north of Wealden and therefore an emphasis seems to have been placed on a
greater proportion of affordable housing in Uckfield. This does not reflect the needs of Uckfield itself and
therefore appears to be an attempt to artificially alter the demographic of the town.
Attachment: yes
Question 5a
Person ID 521928
Agent ID 536448
Ms
Yarker
Ms Yarker
Montagu Evans
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
WSL does not consider that there is sufficient evidence to require a provision of 40% affordable housing across
the site, paryicularly as the proposed development has not been the subject of a viability testing. To this end, a
policy that requires the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing would ensure that a supportable level
of affordbale housing is delivered as part of the strategic development. Such a policy would require the maximum
reasonable amount of affordable housing with reference to development viability, the availability of public subsidy
the implications of phased development including provisions for re-appraising the viability of phases prior to
implementations. It is noted that the council recognises the viability as well as the creation of a mixed and
balanced community are factors in determining an appropriate level of affordable housing. WSL would welcome
this recognition to be reflected in an affordable housing policy.
Page 428 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: yes
Question 5a
Person ID 104437
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Keeley
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
No Open market
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 104030
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Gould
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Proportion is too high. Better to be nearer 20%
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 106812
Miss
Sound
Agent ID
Proctor
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 106202
Agent ID
Mr
Taylor
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Same comments as for question 5a
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 629866
Agent ID
Mr and Mrs Desbrow
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
We think that the legal minimum requirement of 30% is more than adequate .As these homes tend to be smaller
this would mean an increase in the number of properties which would result in greater pressure on the local
infrastructure.
Page 429 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 629375
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Mason
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
See comments for the 40% level but if this not higher enough to move to the higher level.
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 521865
Agent ID 521853
Mr
Stevens
Knight Developments
Mr
Stevens
AS Planning
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
There should be no requirement for a minimum provision of affordable housing on this site or on any other site in
the District, whether within an SDA or not. The appropriateness of provision on all sites depends upon economic
viability and there is no guarantee that any particular site could provide â€ãt leastâ€™ a certain level of
affordable housing and remain viable. That should be a test that is undergone at the time of consideration of a
planning application. The only provision in the Core Strategy should be that affordable housing will be required,
and an overall figure for the plan area should be set out, but should be subject to detailed testing at the
application stage. The councilâ€™s assertion in paragraph 7.12 of the Submission Core strategy that it has
commissioned specialist research on the viability of housing that shows that â€œthe potential viability of housing
sites in the central and northern parts of the District could support a higher proportion of affordable housing than
in most locations in the southâ€ is a significant generalisation that does not relate to viability, but to overall
housing market comparison. To base policy requirements on â€œpotential viabilityâ€ and on such
generalisations cannot be acceptable. In addition there is no indication in the Wealden Affordable Housing
Viability Statement as to the potential effect of additional requirements for infrastructure provision on individual
sites, and the council has not sought in the Core Strategy to seek to quantify the likely levels of such provision,
either collectively or on a site by site basis. Such additional infrastructure requirements could have a significant
effect on the potential achievable level of affordable housing. The Wealden Affordable Housing Viability
Statement itself states (page 11) â€œWith an ambitious but realistic target in place, the Council would be
expected to retain the flexibility to deal with individual schemes where the specific circumstances justify, on
viability grounds, a reduced requirement for affordable housing (and/or an alternative mix of affordable housing
and/or the use of grant if available).â€ In an overall sense therefore there is no justification for a more specific
approach to the provision of affordable housing for individual SDAâ€™s through the Core Strategy. A general
policy defining an overall level of affordable requirement, with a provision that the final level is a matter for
individual circumstances at the time of detailed proposals for development, is sufficient at this stage. The
provision of affordable housing is essentially linked to need and viability and these are key considerations. In
determining the most appropriate locations and numbers of affordable housing units that will come forward as
part of the Strategic Sites DPD there is no justification to seek to adjust the provision on a site by site basis. That
would potentially prevent sites coming forward at an appropriate time and lead to delays in delivery of housing.
The very high level of housing need that the council has identified will not be met by the level of housing provision
required and the sites allocated in the SSDPD will in any case fall very significantly short of meeting housing
requirements. It is therefore essential that there should be no â€˜brakeâ€™ on delivery. A provision of 35%
should be carried forward, with confirmation that actual final levels of affordable housing will depend upon
detailed individual consideration of sites. That will provide a necessary element of certainty whilst allowing
flexibility through negotiations in relation to specific sites that may allow for a greater (or lesser) provision
depending on economic viability and other contributions that may be sought. It is considered that this should be
the same for all sites within the DPD as it sets a baseline that can be adjusted as required whilst providing a level
of certainty that will contribute to bringing sites, and affordable housing, forward.
Page 430 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 103870
Mr & Mrs
Sound
Agent ID
Judge
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
This is too much.
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 334647
Mr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
100%
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 334812
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Maximum it to 100%
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 329648
Agent ID
Mrs
Crowhurst
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
Proportion of affordable housing should be defined on need and viability
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 107739
Cllr
Sound
Agent ID
Shing
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
It should maximum it to 100%
Page 431 of 1161
Report March 2014
Attachment: no
Question 5b
Person ID 106485
Agent ID
Mr
Serpis
Sound
Agree
Disagree
No opinion
Further comments
Reasons/comments
As mentioned above, it is recognised that there is a greater need for smaller and affordable housing in Uckfield
than elsewhere in the District. Whilst it is accepted that may make the overall development less attractive to
prospective developers, it is suggested that developers be enc

Summary of Individual Representations made in accordance with

Transcription

Similar documents

Minutes_CurriculumBS..

Brochure AP-810-AH-T

Additional Agenda Item Attachment

Agenda Complete - City of Haverhill

sigmanet, inc.

Broschyr holland.pub

boa-packet-15apr9-boa15-02

Buckeyes Got Your Back: Evaluation of a Bystander Intervention

Hydraulic Excavator Coupler