Sponsored by
Your Letters May 7
I AM WRITING to add my voice to the opposition to the proposal for a sand quarry at Horncroft.
Although not a resident of the Fittleworth area I have been familiar with the quiet lanes around the village for over 50 years from cycling around the area with my late parents as a young lad to taking them to Burton Mill Pond in the car in their later years. This was always one of our favourite drives and they would be horrified at the proposals for Horncroft.
I fully agree with the points made by other correspondents regarding increased lorry traffic and the effects on the natural habitat. Our countryside in Sussex is under enormous pressure with the demands for increased housebuilding contributing to an increase in vehicular traffic on our inadequate roads. This application must be turned down.
I would like to say this to Sir Sebastian Paten Campbell Anstruther of that Ilk - 9th Baronet of Balcaskie and 14th Baronet of Anstruther - "You obviously have Scottish connections. If you wish to extract sand find somewhere in Scotland and do not desecrate our delightful countryside in the South of England."
ANDREW J POTTER
Cranworth Road, Worthing
FRONT page of WSCT (South Downs edition] 23rd April - Downs sandpit plan. Page 4 same issue - "New Park authority makes history".
Unless this infant authority immediately opposes and defeats the Barlavington estate proposal to establish a sandpit on its land within the National Park, the new park authority will lose credibility and thereby become just another expensive quango involved with local affairs.
And this at a time when the finances of parish, district and county councils are being severely restricted. I suspect that a plea of " national importance" can over- ride even the powers of a National Park authority.
HARRY MOUSDELL
London Road, Ashington
THE HORSHAM Society motto (or 'strapline' in modern parlance) is 'Our concern is the past, present and future of the town'.
In his letter (County Times, April 30), Brian Hanson questions our intent.
I would like to remind him that the developers do not live in Horsham but that we are stuck with what they build forever. They exist only to make money, houses are incidental.
We believe that the greatest good is for developments to be suitable for the people who will live there and should result in a sense of place with a comfortable and pleasing environment with good facilities at an early stage (Jane Apostolou's letter in the same County Times).
The Horsham Society is not against change, on the contrary we recognise that it is inevitable and we want to work with planners and developers to get the best for Horsham.
We are disappointed that the planners do so little planning. We believe that a coherent staged plan for the whole of West of Horsham should be stage-managed by the council. This is not happening; they are merely reacting to the developers' profit-led proposals.
At the same time they cave in over affordable housing when the developers plead poverty. Anyone might think that the developers, rather than the people of Horsham, vote for our local councillors!
The society has been trying to find good examples of well designed modern sustainable houses (not flats or appartments) suitable for families, where the kids can play in the garden, a family's cars can be parked and the houses constructed to save energy.
This is the 'Quality' we seek. For a development of 2,000 homes one would have thought it would have been worth the developers' while to get some good architects on the job, and the council's to encourage this rather than issuing guidance which errs on the side of mediocrity.
For long-term sustainability community facilities are needed, including public transport, before the new residents get into bad habits and addicted to their cars. Grey water recycling and combined heat and power should also be given serious consideration.
There are a lot of issues which need to be resolved. Neither HDC nor the developers seem to take them seriously but they must be addressed for the long-term benefit of Horsham or what Brian Hanson would call the 'greatest good'. Come and join us Mr Hanson.
N.C. FRISWELL
Vice-president
The Horsham Society
Whitehorse Road Horsham
I DON'T think your correspondent Brian Hanson (letters, April 30) is right when he describes balance and quality in the title of my piece (April 16) as a false dichotomy when they are not mutually exclusive.
The balance I referred to is the convenient means to an end which the planner I was quoting employed to resolve disputes between neighbours as quickly and with as little trouble as possible. Some know it as the doctrine of equal misery.
The quality I referred to measures what he was neglecting to pay sufficient attention to - the public interest in the quality of the wider environment. It cannot just be left to happen.
Nor is quality driven by some desire for exclusivity. Unqualified it means nothing. It can be good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate, just as criticism can be favourable or unfavourable.
In terms of materials and construction The Horsham Society qualifies it in terms of truthfulness. It believes in honest construction and it also believes, with Ruskin, that 'where you cannot afford good quality stone you should use good quality brick'.
Quality in terms of design gets more complicated. You can say that it is like an elephant - hard to describe but you will know it when you see it.
One objective way of qualifying it is by the feelings it arouses in the onlooker - good feelings suggest good quality - and there is some evidence (which I discussed in a previous piece) that our brains are to some extent hard-wired. This may account for there being at least some agreement over the years as to where quality lies.
By way of reassurance to your correspondent I cannot see that anything said in the piece poses a threat to the provision of affordable houses for the masses (full Marx?) or to the sustainable welfare of future generations. Our concern for the future is at least equal to our concern for the past and the present.
OLIVER PALMER
Vice-president
The Horsham Society
Chairman
planning sub-committee
Causeway, Horsham
I AM WRITING to register my disdain at the manner in which planning application DC/09/2138 – land east of A24 Worthing Road, Horsham - was considered at Horsham District Council's development control committee on April 20.
At the start of the meeting there were ten objectors, who spoke on a variety of issues including flooding, traffic congestion and provision of affordable housing. The only person who spoke in favour was the developer.
The committee discussion was led by the Liberal Democrat councillors, who investigated the evidence and came to the conclusion that they were unable to support the development.
Only three of the Conservative councillors spoke.
The first asked an intelligent question about the flooding issue. At the end of the meeting he assured us that having read the late material, to which he had a good ten minutes to read at the commencement of the meeting, that he was 100 per cent certain that the response of the Environmental Agency (EA) satisfied him.
Why was he not satisfied from the outset? The fact that the one in a 1,000 year flood has been surpassed at least three times a year for the last ten years candidly states that the base modelling map that was produced by the EA is flawed and needs revision, along with the flood strategy of the developer.
The second stated that a good reason to approve the development was because the developer would appeal anyway – surely this is systemic failure?
The third complained of the negativity of the Liberal Democrats and stated, 'We have got ourselves a good deal here'.
The other ten Conservative councillors resembled cardboard cutouts.
At the vote all 13 Conservative councillors voted for the development. This blatant practice of party politics has left me completely disillusioned with our alleged 'democracy'.
As the meeting progressed the case officer and her advisers were unable to provide clear answers with regards to the flooding, the traffic and the off-site provision of affordable housing.
So much so that a transport modelling adviser had to brought in from West Sussex County Council (the highway authority) and he stated that the Transport Assessment carried out by the developer's consultant had been carried out in accordance with the recommended procedure of the county's highways department.
But I should point out that Hills Farm Lane is not in the model and there is no representation of the queuing that we all experience on Guildford Road approaching Farthings Hill (Broadbridge Heath) roundabout.
Personally, as a qualified transport planning professional, who has created and assessed many traffic models, I can confirm that the model is unfit for purpose as it cannot realistically assess the future impact of traffic at Hills Farm Lane. The observed existing queues (on Google Earth Street View no less) simply magnify my point.
Frankly I do not care whether it was carried out in accordance with the guidelines of the highways authority. I would like to see a model that actually assesses what it is supposed to assess, in the relevant location.
As a local resident who is about to see two attractive green fields subsumed so that the council can meet its housing targets I am left fuming.
I hope it is quashed by the Secretary of State.
PAUL MARTIN
Stoneybrook, Horsham
I ATTENDED the meeting of HDC's development control (north) committee on Tuesday April 20 in truth as an observer, mainly for my education and to keep abreast of how Horsham looks to be shaping up in the future.
This meeting astounded me, in as much as that I had never seen a group of councillors (all bar one) so totally unprepared to accept planning law or economic logic/reality.
The amount and mix of housing that a geographic area is required to provide is not a local decision, that quota is handed down by central government; it is then for the local area to allocate possible areas of development – and then wait for planning applications from developers or housing associations.
We all know planning is not 'fair'. We may 'hate' a particular planning application, but the rub is that if it ticks all the planning guideline boxes, if the statutory consultees (highways, Environment Agency) do not formerly object; if objections are not raised by residents or councillors on planning grounds; then refusing a planning application on whimsical phrases such as 'it is a pity that' or 'personally I think xx survey is wrong' would be madness.
To refuse an application this way would invite an appeal by the applicant that was certain to succeed, the local authority would end up paying costs in the tens of thousands of pounds (of taxpayers' money), purely in trying to make a point that it thought an application 'unfair' – or simply put 'not liked'.
I stated earlier that I was astounded – why?
I and many others sat through over two hours of what could only charitably be described as 'unfortunate comments' from all but one of the Lib Dem group present. In two hours I did not hear anyone from that group quote an objection using any PPG/PPS references.
They did not seem to want to accept that the consultees had performed their modelling on laid-down principles; and whether we (Horsham residents) like it or not; the results of that modelling meant that no objection by the consultees under the rules that they are required to follow was possible.
The whole two hours could have been cut down to a few key questions:
1) Does the application meet required planning guidelines?
2) Do the attached 'planning conditions' adequately safeguard the council and the residents?
3) Has the best economic/fiscal deal been reached in the current and foreseeable economic climate between the local authorities and the developer in terms of infrastructure, community benefits and social/affordable housing levels?
If the answer to those three questions is yes, then any local authority refusing an application or even attempting to hold it up would be in a serious position re an appeal.
Political posturing over planning applications that have ticked all the boxes, built in safeguards and captured the best fiscal deal is unseemly and unwarranted.
Remember, it is the Labour Government that all but stripped from local authorities all powers to make real planning judgements at the local level – not the Conservatives, not the Lib Dems and not the officers of the council.
JIM RAE
Beaver Close, Horsham
I HAVE enjoyed living in Southwater for the past 48 years; all of my life in fact.
However the experience has been constantly overshadowed by the threat of development. Our burgeoning human population needs to be housed of course and this part of the world is a very desirable place to live.
I would however like to make a plea for the silent majority of other creatures who share this village with us and who make it such a stunning environment.
Diverse, precious wildlife, who have no voice with which to express their views about what is to happen to their home.
I did not attend the Southwater consultation earlier this year, though I considered doing so. I have to admit to a deep depression about the future of my village, and indeed of the world. Seeing the proposed development in black and white would not help! However, it is my responsibility to use my voice and express my views.
Therefore, on behalf of all the astonishingly wonderful birds, insects, plants, flowers, trees, and small creatures enjoying the good earth of Southwater, I would ask you to consider the future of our still rural village.
Is this quality not a reason why many of us choose to live here? Lose the rural element and the essential character of Southwater, along with many voiceless fellow creatures, is gone forever.
LINDA BAKER
Worthing Road, Southwater
IT HAS recently been publicised in the West Sussex County Times that after a review that has occurred over this winter, only the Billingshurst and Southwater housing development proposals remain under consideration.
With this in mind, are we to be told the reasoning behind these decisions and as to why some schemes are to be dropped and some are to go ahead?
Many residents of Billingshurst would be interested to know where the extra commuters are to park their cars as there is no available plot at present to enlarge or make additional car parking space.
I would be interested to know how or whether the current drainage system can cope with the influx of people or if it is to be upgraded.
Many people are concerned about the effect on the existing community of a further significant increase in population.
J. SUMMERFIELD
Daux Way, Billingshurst
MY COTTAGE in Surrey was on the edge of commons and I looked out on horse paddocks across the road.
If one crossed the road one could walk for miles without crossing another. So to be near her, my daughter knew she had to find me a house with at least access to open space.
With the one she found we both thought this had been achieved. Much smaller, with a tiny garden yet next to ancient woodland and fields stretching beyond the footpath at the back. The garden a haven for birds as trees and hedgerows provided shelter and food.
This little patch is in Billingshurst which is now threatened with development in these very fields and beyond. The village is very friendly, one is made to feel very welcome, even strangers smile. There is a wonderful library with kind and helpful staff.
To propose an additional 1,750 houses will swamp the village, and in my opinion take the heart out of it. Destroy valuable habitats forever. There are already not enough parking spaces, the schools are full.
Please reconsider, do not devastate another piece of West Sussex. Once destroyed it can never be brought back.
M.B. OFFER (Mrs)
Rosier Way Billingshurst
WE HAVE had a few nice days and spring is only just with us but already the pyromaniacs are out setting bonfires and polluting the air.
I find it perverse that Horsham District Council, while professing to be pursuing green policies and caring for the environment, refuses to implement the Clean Air Act.
There is no necessity for bonfires as HDC's Acorn Scheme is very good and excellent waste/recycling tips are also provided.
Bonfires are not simply unpleasant but are also detrimental to the environment and people's health and it is time they are banned. It is impossible to have windows open and to work in the garden.
One neighbour recently had a bonfire four days on the trot. It is a fact that the council has no idea or any control over what residents burn as highlighted in the national newspapers recently.
We have the Government warning of the dangers to the public's health from the volcanic ash from Mount Eyjafjallokull but even ordinary domestic bonfires contain tiny particles of harmful carcinogenic material. It is time the souncil was held responsible for the detrimental affects of people's bonfires.
BOB BISHOP
Broomfield Drive, Billingshurst
THE FRIENDS of Hobbs Field would like to thank all individuals and businesses who either contributed to or bought items at our Auction of Promises and Gifts on April 23.
The grand total made was just over 2,000 which will enable the Friends to continue to hold social events and outings and to buy Easter and Christmas presents for the residents of Hobbs Field, all of whom have learning disabilities.
SHIRLEY BRADLEY
Secretary, Friends of Hobbs Field
Leechpool Lane, Horsham
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Horsham
Wednesday 08 February 2012
Today
Cloudy
Temperature: -2 C to 2 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: -1 C to 3 C
Wind Speed: 7 mph
Wind direction: North east
