I WRITE regarding the proposed retirement village at Agates Yard, Faygate. This proposal, which was featured in the County Times on February 29, goes before the development control committee (north) on May13 in the hope that the committee will resolve to grant outline planning permission.
There presently exists on 12 acres of the 30 acre site a number of rundown industrial buildings and visible evidence of uncontrolled tipping activities carried out over a number of years, scarring the approach to this pleasant village.
The sche
me going before the council members is for the construction of 156 cottages and apartments together with a residential retirement home and facilities building on broadly the same footprint as the existing industrial buildings.
The balance of the site will be remediated, landscaped and be available to all villagers new and old as valuable open space. Additionally the ecological and environmental qualities of the site will be greatly enhanced.
Two exhibitions have been held in Faygate to inform and assist our design team to prepare this proposal and it is with some satisfaction that the majority of existing villagers of Faygate and Colgate have positively welcomed our proposals.
Further, the scheme has been supported by the parish council, the local residents' association and the head of supported housing at West Sussex County Council responsible for the delivery of housing for the elderly throughout the county.
Importantly the development will make a very valuable contribution to Horsham District Council's Affordable Housing Targets, which it is failing to meet, by making almost £4m available to spend on site and district wide to deliver much needed homes for first time buyers and others in acute housing need. In practical terms this means of the order of 60-70 homes.
HDC's planning office, is against our proposal on 'policy grounds'. The two policies which offend the council are the 'strategic gap' and the village being a 'Category 2' village.
It should also be remembered that Faygate village existed before this artificial restraint was introduced; the application site is previously developed land; ie it already is in the 'strategic gap'!
The second policy issue is, simplistically, measured on the existing facilities within the village.
In addition to the planning gain benefits mentioned above the new development will bring with it the following facilities for the use of both existing and new residents thus enhancing the status of the village.
A medical centre (presently there isn't one).
A general store (presently there isn't one).
Thirty equivalent full time jobs will be created.
A new bus service, running through the village, will be available to existing residents.
Traffic calming to the northern entrance to the village to reduce the propensity of speeding traffic causing accidents. Another, but less visible benefit, will be the cascade effect of releasing under occupied family housing in the district as older residents move into this purpose designed scheme.
In conclusion, it is hoped that the development control committee members will see the present restrictive policy as inappropriate in this instance and positively endorse this well supported proposal, thus enabling the promoter to deliver tangible wider housing benefits to the district and restoring local amenities to Faygate.
BILL GAIR
Chief executive, Urban Renaissance Villages
Purley Way, Croydon, Surrey
The full article contains 543 words and appears in n/a newspaper.
