Comments by Vic Ient made to the SDNPA dated 9th April 2015.
These comments can be seen of the SDNPA web site as well.
Re:
SDNP/12/02520/FUL Spring Barn 'Farm' Park
(Erection
of 5 houses with garages and the erection of a 1 x large (1084 sq m) & 1 x
smaller (126 sq m) ‘warehouse’ type buildings on farmland in the South Downs
valley between Kingston & Lewes parishes. Plus the retention of an existing
‘agricultural’ barn at this southern end of the ill-defined ‘farm’ park site).
I
have lived in the area close by to this development for over 30 years. For over
20 of those years I lived in Kingston. With my sons I have used the public
footpath through this site frequently over the 30 years. I remember this valley
when there was no farm shop or play area and indeed before the two large
agricultural barns which were built out into the downland valley area. The valley
has already changed with the introduction of new housing, the farm shop and the
recreational development area. Any further change should enhance the area and
not detract from it.
A
decision on this 2 ½-year-old planning application should not proceed until
proper consultation has been undertaken with the Lewes Town Council and
Kingston Parish Council.
I
am concerned that many residents thought that this application had been
abandoned. In fact one lady told me that she gone into the local district Council
offices at the time of the original application as she had seen something in
the newspaper about it but was told that nothing was happening.
It
would be a travesty of natural justice to push this application through now
after over two years of silence by the authorities over this matter. A decision
now would simply not be democratic.
Please
defer consideration until there has been appropriate public consultation by the
developer with the local community in Kingston village and the Kingston Road/Cranedown.
The
application has been on the books for 2 ½ years so I don’t see why the
applicant couldn’t wait another month or two before getting a decision
It
seems that the consultations undertaken in 2012 did not include Kingston parish
whose boundary with the site lies only a few meters away from where the new
industrial building is to be erected. Also, many of the residents of Wellgreen
Lane, Kingston have the whole site in direct view from their rear gardens.
However, it seems that there’s been no attempt by SDNPA officers or the
applicant to consult with them after the numerous ‘internal’ exchanges between
various council & SDNPA officers and the applicant during the 2012 to 2015
period.
All
public consultation should be updated before this application is put before the
SDNPA planning committee.
Further:
The
principle of a children’s play area (though a little expensive for the average
parent) a farm shop and cafe constructed a few years ago has been a great
addition to the area.
However,
many people don’t like the large 3 story residential building which detracts
from the beautiful valley scene. However that past planning mistake is past
history now.
This
new application submitted 2 ½ years ago, which very few people seem to know
about, is for the building of 3 detached houses, 2 two semi-detached houses and
the construction of a very large building further out into the valley near the
agricultural barn which itself was only built a few years ago. Key concerns
about this development are:
1) The development is adding more buildings in
a small, beautiful valley in the South Downs. The large industrial style
building set further out into the downland valley is out of keeping and
destroys the rural nature of the area. The large, 1000 sq m, 7.65m high,
industrial style building will be a prominent permanent eyesore in the once
beautifful, peaceful and tranquil valley. I hope the members and officers
appreciate its size and scale – it is approximately 2 ½ times the size of the
existing large farm barn next to where it will be sited.
2) The building of houses further extends
residential development on the land between Lewes and Kingston. This could set
a precedent for further development.
3) The NPPF does not seem to be adhered to by
the developer with respect to consulting and working with the community: “66.
Applicants will be expected to work closely with those directly affected by
their proposals to evolve designs that take account of the views of the
community”.
4) The development contravenes para 115 of the
NPPF, namely: Where it says “Great weight should be given to conserving
landscape and scenic beauty in National Parks, …………, which have the highest
status of protection in relation to landscape and scenic beauty. ………….”
Regarding
the officer recommendations my comments are:
a) The report states that the farm park
offices desirable attraction for local people and visitors to the National
Park. That is not new information – this facility is already successfully
established and doesn’t need new buildings or houses to supplement this
facility.
b) The report states The housing element is
within an existing settlement boundary, – this is not true. There is no
boundary here as set down by the planning authority and in fact the houses
proposed be built are within the original farm yard and buildings area.
c) The report states that the new farm Park
building will not appear out of place. There is no justification for this
statement and it appears to be just the opinion of the writer and not supported
by the SDNPA design officer or the ESCC county architect.
d) Item 10 of the conditions implies that
there is going to be external lighting. Is the SDNPA about to agree to lighting
in a valley which currently is a good candidate for the national parks dark
skies programme. I’m not sure if the nearby residents in Wellgreen Lane and
Ashcombe Lane Kingston will appreciate the lighting up of the valley at night.
e) Bearing in mind the size of the new ‘Farm
Park’ building it is obvious that many more visitors will be attracted to the
site. Over the last two days I have counted over 100 cars being parked. This is
well in excess of the applicant’s estimated 64. Extended car parking should not
be pushed further up the valley or be allowed to operate at night after a
certain time.
f) I may be wrong but no mention seems to be
made of the camping site which presumably the smaller new building will service
(toilets and washrooms). Lighting associated with this and the use of such buildings
should not destroy the tranquillity and quietness of the area at night. Local
residents already have a concern of noise late into the night in the summer
months.
g) The SDNPA design officer’s says that the
Farm Park building looks too industrial in nature. It is good some of the
glazing area has been removed but fundamentally this building is too high and
too large for the site.
h) Both the SDNPA design officer and the ESCC
County architect recommend the use of flint walls to maintain the character
typical of the South downs. The site is already somewhat ugly with use of wire
and post fencing and the further use of this along with other types of wood
fencing is below the standard which development should be meeting bearing in
mind national parks have the highest level of planning protection available in
the whole of England.
Finally:
I.
Very little regard has been given to the public footpath which crosses
the site. This deserves more special attention to improve traffic separation
from cars.
II.
No mention is made in the documentation about the Cuckshut stream which
runs through the site. As you will see by inspection it looks in a poor state.
Please avoid any culverting of this stream and include conditions which would
enhance the attractiveness and appearance of one of the very few downland
valley streams we have in the area. Also special attention should be given to
keeping this stream clear of debris to enhance the habitat for wildlife.
III.
Please take account of the views of the South Downs Society and the
Friends of Lewes and reject the over intensification of this downland valley.
Regards
Vic
Ient
