Public Consultation?

Copy of Councillor Steve Saunders, (deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the Lewes District Council) comments to the press on the proposed 'regeneration portfolio' programme (more commonly called the '49' sites):    

"Having attended the consultation event 'organised' by LDC at the Hillcrest Centre in Newhaven last Thursday, I find myself left even more angry about the proposals put forward by the Tory Administration than ever.

As a serving District Councillor on LDC representing Newhaven Valley, I have been left as much in the dark about the detail of plans hatched between the developer and the Conservatives, as anyone else. Now they have been revealed in all their glory, it is clear that every town and parish in the District are furious at the proposals. In Seaford public do not want to lose a valuable seafront car park, Lewes are up in arms about losing a well utilised public toilet and Peacehaven are raging about the loss of their parking facilities too.

Hundreds of residents turned up to express their anger at plans, despite the fact that the event was not (as suggested) advertised through doorstep leafleting.

Newhaven face the loss of several sites which include: an recreational area of special scientific importance and a valuable open space; areas adjacent to a nature reserve and; a car park facility to support the development of the Council Depot, along with the potential loss of nearby existing businesses. The Newhaven sites too, have been identified as taking most, if not all the affordable/social housing for all the District sites.

As a long-serving Councillor, I am well aware of the need for affordable housing throughout the District, but the centralisation of all of it in Newhaven will do nothing for the regeneration of the Town and not help those in need across the District. Our road infrastructure is at breaking point and in an ironic twist of fate, many visitors to the event were delayed by 2 consecutive bridge openings either side of 5pm, causing the associated tailbacks in every direction. Schools and health services are also in desperate need, not helped by the County Council's preposterous decision to close the Grays School at Western Road.

The Town needs a mix of private and social housing, giving it a balance of residents to encourage spending and growth, as well as much needed affordable units.

How an administration elected by the people can chose to sign a contract with a developer, without fully consulting with not only the Councillors involved, but the very people affected, is beyond comprehension. The loss of valuable open space involved in Newhaven, together with equally valuable commercial land is at best short-sighted and at worst a belligerent act by an out of touch administration. With every corner of the District up in arms at the proposals, this has to be withdrawn and a sensible approach adopted, which include full consultation with all interested parties and proper account taken of Neighbourhood Plans that are currently being drawn up.

I and my colleagues will be fighting the Newhaven proposals as they stand and will be looking for a cohesive approach with like-minded people in other Towns and Parishes that are equally angered by yet another decision forced upon us.

Steve Saunders

Lewes District Councillor

(Newhaven Valley)"

A Question on Waste!

Councillor Steve Saunders, deputy leader of the Liberal Democrat group on the Lewes District Council asks a key question at the July full council meeting of the Lewes District Council of the Conservative Leader on the question of public consultation regarding waste collections:

In the recent forward plan announced by this administration, a plan to implement fortnightly household waste collections has been introduced.

To my knowledge, there has been no consultation to date with the residents of the District over these proposals and this appears to mirror the recent decision made by this same administration to sell off various pockets of land that include recreational and amenity areas and comes on top of the introduction of Special Expenses to charge certain residents for maintenance of open spaces in their towns and villages.

In Newhaven, we are home to not only the County Incinerator, where the household waste is sent for processing, but is where the District Council Depot is sited, housing our fleet of collection vehicles. No concession is given to Newhaven’s residents for the lesser costs involved in our waste collection, which is somewhat ironic, based on the reasoning behind the introduction of the previously mentioned Special Expenses.

This latest decision to reduce collections will exacerbate problems we already face in the town, with Seagulls, Foxes and other animals causing terrible problems with waste left out overnight for our waste collection service. Rubbish is often strewn across roads as bin bags are ripped apart and their contents scattered. Young families too, such as my own neighbours, rely on a weekly service to collect not one, but two wheelie bins (that they have had to purchase themselves!) full of rubbish containing amongst other items, nappies from the young children.

This is not an isolated example and affects many of the young families in Newhaven and I’m sure elsewhere in the District.

The measures associated with the planned alterations to the service, will presumably necessitate a blanket introduction of larger wheelie bins, which may or may not be supplied free of charge for residents, together with a possibly more frequent, but definitely better encouraged take up of the recycling scheme. A scheme that according to published data, has been failing to meet targets and is a poor record for the administration.

Where Christmas, Easter and Bank Holidays cause issues with fortnightly collections, we already see problems increase, but this may very well mean a further increase to 3 weeks in many cases.

My question to the Leader and/or his Cabinet Leader for Waste and Recycling, is will he be fully consulting with all residents before introducing the scheme, by way of a detailed survey delivered to all households, showing exactly how the scheme will work and showing what the costs for residents will be and showing what savings will be made for both the Council and potentially to people's Council Tax Bills?

Spring Barn Farm Development

Comments by Vic Ient made to the SDNPA dated 9th April 2015.

These comments can be seen of the SDNPA web site as well. 

Dear Planning,

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