Well here’s an example of the confused responses to HDC’s consultation about their plans for housing and economic development in the District.
Chris Owens (an officer at West Sussex County Council, ID: 788576) responding to Paragraph 7.51 in Chapter 7 ‘Strategic Allocations’. He states that ‘No he does not support this policy or paragraph… It is too negative’. But then he says in answer to the question If you do not support the policy / paragraph, what would you like to happen? ‘Not Applicable - Support Policy’. Muddled thinking?
He then goes on: ‘Paragraph 7.51: The provision of safe and convenient pedestrian and cycle crossings of the A264 will contribute significantly to the achievement of sustainable development at the proposed North Horsham strategic location. Whilst the provision of ‘at-grade’ facilities at new or improved junctions is supported it is likely that ‘grade-separated’ crossings, if carefully designed, will be more attractive to a proportion of cyclists and pedestrians than ‘at-grade’ facilities. Therefore, in order to ensure adequate and convenient access to ‘grade-separated’ facilities, it is considered that the length of the site ‘frontage’ along the A264 and current master plan proposals would justify the provision of two or more pedestrian/cycle bridges. It is also suggested that consideration be given to improved footpath/bridleway links between the proposed North Horsham site and the village of Rusper.’
It would be good if he had explained what ‘at-grade’ and ‘grade separated’ means - such jargon just confuses the ordinary resident – leaving them in a mist.
But what he says next is clear – he wants to build two more bridges across the A264 (more traffic chaos while they are installed) and he wants improved links with Rusper.
I am sure Rusper Parish Council and indeed the Inspector will have views about that ‘coalescing’ move.
He doesn’t say where the money would come from since HDC has given away most of the potential CIL income to the proposed American developer.
North Parade, Horsham