Please find below:

1. Instructions for registering and responding on line
2. Notes made at the meeting on 11th July
3. Contact details for the leader of Mid Sussex District Council to express your concerns about a possible full relief road around East Grinstead to The Brambletye Bends

Sincerely,

Cllr David Jonas.
01342 826 144

1. Instructions for registering and responding on line:
(Consultation on the Core Strategy “Issues and Options” runs from 2nd July to 13th August.)

1. Go to http://www.wealden.gov.uk
2. Where it says ‘Latest News’, click on the  first link that says:
   view the Core Strategy Issues & Options consultation paper

3. Under the heading: Make Your Comments, click on the link that says register.
4. You will then go to a log in page, but you need a password to go further.
5. You will be sent an email with your password
6. Copy and paste your password into the Login box.
7. You will then be taken into the consultation document.
8. On the left hand side, is a menu with each section. Part 1 is the Context, and there is only one opportunity to comment on this. You will be able to do this from the top of the page in the yellow band, which says ‘View Representations’ and ‘Add Representations’
9. Through the rest of the sections, you can make a general comment on the whole section, and if you scroll down through the document, various questions are asked which are in a yellow box. You can click on ‘View’ (to see what other people have said) and ‘Add’, to add your own views.

2. Notes made at meeting on 11th July

Below is a summary of most of the points that were made regarding the questions in the Local Development Framework Core Strategy (Issues and Options) document. We hope it will be useful to your continued thought-process, while making your response to Wealden District Council.  There is inevitably some cross-over between questions, so please keep that in mind and draw from the information where-ever it is. If you consider that we’ve missed something important, please email it back to us so that we can consider sending a second email around to attendees.

Please remember that we are not submitting the comments on your behalf. Please make a representation to the Council, following the instructions above. Remember that you don’t have to respond to every question – just the ones that are important to you.

Question 1 (settlements in AONB)

• We should not be using agricultural land for development. We will need it to grow our own food as the effects of climate change take hold;
• Small scale developments are ok provided they fit in with the surroundings and that they are well designed; specially ok if built for the people looking after the AONB
• OK, but must find appropriate areas that are not as beautiful as others;
• Brownfield sites only should be developed;
• This is a dangerous road to go down - opens up the door to development creeping in;

Question 2 (Renewable Energy)

• go for 50%
• Renewable energy makes homes more expensive and less affordable
• 10% is easily achievable - but what about harnessing energy sources in Wealden independent of buildings (ie wind/ tidal?)
• micro-generating wind-turbines are not worth their carbon footprint in terms of the embedded energy, but 6KW turbines are - let's look at where we could put that size of turbine in Wealden;

David Jonas suggested that if we make high demands, this gives Wealden a clear message about what people want, and then Wealden DC can go about working out more details about the what and where of renewable energy sources; community pressure is powerful;

David also suggested that the higher the demand for renewable energy, the more the price will come down and become more affordable;

• exceptionally designed sustainable homes should be given preference, especially when building on a sensitive (AONB boundary?) site

Question 3 ( Employment Land )

• if not infringing on new land, it is ok;
• it should be flexible;
• would a sensitivity survey be undertaken to ensure that the redevelopment suits the area?
• we should be aiming for people to be working near home to cut down on transport;

David made the comment that we will be needing our farms for food production in the not too distant future

• if we change them too much they may no longer be fit for purpose when we need them;Our village needs diversity - a good mix of types of buildings, so we're not just a village of houses and retail shops;

Question 5 (Settlement Boundaries)

• Forest Row is already full! No more room!

Councillor Keith Whitehead suggested that it may be a good idea to suggest that the plan ensures that certain allocations of land should not be allowed to be broken up - as this is one way that developers have of getting out of the affordable housing obligation, as happened in Park Road

• possibly land on the flood plain could be released on condition that the developers put in flood defenses;
• trying to control the flood plain with technology could have a knock-on effect  that wouldn't be acceptable;
• we should first be asking the question if we want to see the village growing; then if yes, we can look at where;
• there have been studies showing that there is some scope for building (farm) houses wthin the AONB
• there is room for sensible expansion - providing smaller attractive flats for the older people - who can then give up their larger houses and free up existing space; the elderly population is growing;
• don't want to extend the settlement boundaries;

Question 6 (Urban/Rural split)

• we should keep the ratio that already exists;
• it should be worked out according to employment opportunties;
• should be worked out depending on how much additional development can be managed with existing infrastructure;
• if development gets too big, the 'centre of gravity' changes and the community feel is threatened;

Question 7

• criteria are not clear enough; some sensible points but some contradictions; there doesn't appear to be a hierarchy as to how to use criteria to classify ;
• the character of the village hasn't been used as a criterion - if it grows by 20% the character will change;
• how is the growth itself defined? It is stated as a percentage of population but how would that translate into number of houses?

Other comments made here, but which don't fit into question 7 directly:

• having more commuters will push up the price of houses; commuters generally don't have the time to put anything back into the village;
• we must have the additional infratsructure before houses go in;
• we need more houses here to accommodate people who commute into Forest Row;

Question 10 (Site Allocation Thresholds)

• go for 10

Keith Whitehead suggested going for a larger number so that the affordable housing would kick in; but Rowena Moore made the point that affordable housing is supposed to kick in on a development of 10

• isn't the point that there aren't enough houses that people can afford to buy, as opposed to rent?

Keith Whitehead suggested that we could suggest a percentage of affordable homes for rent, and a percentage of low cost homes for purchase;

• is there a demand survey for affordable versus low cost housing?

Keith Whitehead said that there is an identified need for affordable housing;

• if people can build up to 80% ownership of affordable housing they can build up equity which they can then use to purchase a property;
• we should lower the threshold at which point affordable housing kicks in - so a development of 3 houses would include one as 'affordable';

Question 19a (Growth potential for Forest Row)

• the suggested 200 - 340 dwellings is about 17.5 - 20% of what we have currently;

Question 24 (Density)

• examples of current densities: Wall Hatch Close is 22 dwellings per hectare, and the new development on Park Crescent / Hartfield Road is 60 dwellings per hectare;
• must weigh up the cost of higher densities against quality of life;
• 60 dph is not a bad option if on a small scale;
• if higher desnity is well designed then it can satisfy needs easily and can be sustainable;
• we should think more about flats;
• we have the advantage of wide open spaces around us, which we can access - makes flats more possible without compromising quality of life too much;

Question 25 (Housing Policy) - this relates to affordable housing ratios and small dwellings/ flats

• see above as it also relates to these questions;

3. Contact details for the leader of Mid Sussex District Council.

As suggested by Cllr Whitehead, please write to Cllr Marples expressing your concerns about the possibility of a relief road terminating at The Brambletye Bends. If he receives lots of letters from the residents of Forest Row together with professional representations from Wealden District and East Sussex County Councillors, then we can bring influence to bear AND bring it to the attention of a government inspector that this proposition is unsound.

Cllr Gordon MARPLES
Leader of Mid Sussex District Council

Home address:
3 Stanford Ave
Hassocks
West Sussex
BN6 8JL

Tel: 01273 843643
Email: This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it