Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

I would agree with David that, amongst those of us who have lived in the village for over 30 years, it is very easy to take the view that, as we have heard numerous stories about a bypass and extension of the village, none of which have come to fruition, there is no point in taking the current exercise seriously.

There has a lot of debate currently about both the Local Development Framework and the East Grinstead Area Action Plan. From the village point of view I would refer everyone to the Parish Council’s response to the LDF consultation, http://www.forestrow.gov.uk/committees.php which takes to my mind takes a balanced view of the proposals. An overview of the community is given with the conclusion being that the community cannot absorb the number of units proposed in the document because the infrastructure and the services could not cope.

Naturally the LDF needs to be considered in tandem with the EGAAP. The prospect of a relief road of East Grinstead terminating at the Brambletye Bends is not one that most people in the village can be pleased about. East Sussex County Council will have to find a way to resolve this and talk to West Sussex County Council and Mid Sussex District Council with Forest Row’s best interests at heart. I would hope and expect our District Councillor and the Parish Council to reach agreement on what its electorate requires on this issue. It would be comforting to feel that the views of the majority (however silent) are taken into consideration as well as those of a vocal minority.

I don’t know what ESCC have done except say that they could not support any road that would increase traffic by 5% through the village. The official figures put this increase in excess of 30%, so what is their solution if Mid Sussex District Council goes ahead with their plans? Imagine 30% more traffic through the village.

Stories about thousands of houses are not helpful or constructive, when it is apparent that our Parish Council could not even support the 340 houses proposed in the LDF.

It was useful to be given the important dates going forward, however I would have preferred our elected councillor to have taken a more complete overview of the current situation and acknowledged the work that has already been carried out by members of the Parish Council who have equally been chosen by the local electorate. I know from my work in helping to prepare the Parish Plan published in 2005 that both the Chairman and Clerk have devoted a lot of time and energy to this topic.

David mentioned his own petition, however for some reason he has not mentioned that there is already a petition in the local shops, prepared and distributed by our own Parish Council, very simply asking East Sussex County Council to do their best to oppose any relief road of the A22 that would terminate north of the village. It would appear from the local press that he also objects to the Parish Council even discussing alternative routes as they could conflict with his party’s political agenda.

It seems to me that we have all got to work together as a community to make sure that Forest Row is not destroyed for future generations.

Thank you for your valuable comments Ken, which afford me an opportunity to address some minority misconceptions within the village.

I concur with your observation that the Parish Chairman and Clerk have devoted a lot of time and energy to this topic. I also agree that we must all work together to find the best solution for the village.

However, I have been pointing out to our residents for the last 14 months that the Parish Council haven’t been providing all of the information necessary to arrive at an informed view of the situation.

The reality is that within the current national and local planning policy framework, there is no way of financing a bypass for our village other than a levy on housing development – just as for East Grinstead. I know from my experience as a Civil Engineer that the challenging by-pass solution they explored in June 2006 would require at least 1000 houses to finance it. However because this would generate a 55% growth in our population, the same developer would also be required to finance a proportionate increase in expansion of our education, healthcare and recreational and employment space. In order to achieve this, consent for even more houses would be required, and so the development spiral goes on.

This is the lesson learned already by our neighbours in East Grinstead, who several years ago were tempted by the proposition of a solution to their traffic problems if they accepted a substantial part of the government’s housing allocation for Mid Sussex. They now realise that they allowed a Trojan horse through the gates when they entertained this proposal, which subsequently spiralled to a monstrous scale which is now being voted through by district councillors from other areas of the district seeking to avoid a disproportionate level of the government housing allocation being re-directed to their area.

This is one of many reasons why the formal policies of both our District and County Councils are adamantly opposed to such a plan, and why any attempt by our parish council to discuss a bypass with them does not progress.

Even if we failed in our efforts to persuade the government inspector to reject the EG plan (as described in my article above), the projected 33% increase in peak flow traffic from 3b would be the lesser evil compared with the nightmare scenario that would be unleashed if we followed the East Grinstead example of trying to build ourselves out of trouble with a bypass financed by housing.

Finally you make some very spurious assumptions about the level of public support for the Parish Council’s bypass plan. Can I remind you that the most reliable evidence of what the people of Forest Row think about this issue was delivered during the May 2007 local election? 939 voted for our very explicit and extensive appraisal, and 839 voted for the Conservative position, which similarly stated “We maintain that none of the current options for a bypass around Forest Row are viable.” Meanwhile, the parish councillors who created the plan maintained a curious silence about this the most important issue we will have to determine during our current term of office. All you can deduce about the views of the average of 635 people who voted for the incumbent parish councillors is that they justifiably endorse the schedule of ROUTINE parish duties described in their election leaflet – as do I, for they all do wonderful work in this respect.

As for those who did not express any preference, I know from the six months that I spent talking to them on their doorsteps during the pre-election canvassing period, that only a tiny minority maintain a preference for the bypass option once you explain the FULL circumstances under which it would have to be delivered. And if you explain that surveys of similar bypasses around similarly converging roads have proven that it would not deliver long term relief for our village anyway.

David Jonas