Draft Horsham District Local Plan 2019-2036

Comment ID /5199
Document Section Draft Horsham District Local Plan 2019-2036 Housing (Key Questions) Potential Housing Allocations Land at Adversane, West Chiltington Parish (Kingswood) Land at Adversane View all on this section
Respondent Mr Elliott Fielding View all by this respondent
Response Date 30 Mar 2020
What is the nature of this comment?
  • Object
Summary
HDC should not take this site forwards since it does not meet requirements set in the Local Plan and comments shown provided. This is not a sustainable location and does not have services and facilities for its future residents and the site does not intend to provide or supply any of the shortfall.
This site will increase urban sprawl with little benefit to the residents of Horsham District.
Comment

Due to the proposed large scale of this site between 3,500 and 4,000 it is abhorrent that it does not attempt to cater for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.

I do not see how it is possible for this site to generate 4,000 jobs (the claimed 1 per unit) when it is not located in accessible distance to any employment and the enly jobs proposed on the site are a high street, library and country club/hotel the combined total of jobs would not even reach 500 so this is a work of fiction with no substance to back up the claim.

There are no train stations, there are limited pavements to enable safe walking to local facilities and services.

This site does not provide any on site education facilities and this would lead to those in the locality being swamped with no ability to meet the huge increase in demands. The promise of a link to Brinsbury College is misleading since this is a small specialised agricultural college not a primary or secondary school, and the employment opportunities on the campus are limited – another poor baseless claim for this site.  The majority of the site would have to cross the railway to access Brinsbury College which is not safe and there is no safe pavement for walking or cycling from the site.  Education needs to be corrected it is not green but red since there is no provision on or close to the site and no sustainable modes of transport to enable students to access it safely, the text recognised that “Further work is required to understand in more detail how the educational needs arising from this new development could be met, although it is recognised that this will to some extent depend on feedback from West Sussex County Council”.  Until West Sussex County Council give positive feedback supporting this site it must be marked as RED for education.

This site does not provide any on site healthcare facilities and this would lead to those in the locality being swamped with no ability to meet the huge increase in demands.  Health needs to be corrected it is not green but red since there no provision on or close to the site.

The access to the site is split by a railway and there is only one crossing on the northern edge of the site.  A crossing is proposed but this is not in the gift of the developer or HDC since the railways are owned and managed by Network Rail.  This promise is empty and should be disregarded especially when it is reported in the text for Site Suitability Summary that “there is currently a lack of endorsement from Network Rail for the provision of a new bridge over the railway which forms part of the re-routing of the B2133….”.

The site is currently serviced by B roads and unclassified roads within the site.  This will lead to traffic chaos and due to the location residents will be forced to rely on their private cars and make all their journeys by private car. 

This is not a sustainable location and does not have services and facilities for its future residents and the site does not intend to provide or supply any of the shortfall.

The A29 is a former Roman Road and of great archaeological importance.

The protected species on the site has been acknowledged but the impact to it has not been taken into account when looking at biodiversity which should be red not green since it is on a site known designated Special Area of Conservation.  Please correct this.

The claims made by this site need to be verified e.g.

  • The claim it will provide “one new job per home”, this is flawed. The suggestion that a library which I assume has the go ahead from WSCC & if not is then not going to happen, a new high street which I assume has the relevant businesses lined up ready to open new shops and a country club/hotel again is a business interested in this venture are going to provide between 3,500 and 4,000 new jobs is wrong,  the true number would be lucky to exceed 200 jobs.
  • The claim that a new bridge over the railway can be delivered – this is not in the gift of the developer or HSDC and Network Rail have not endorsed this claim.
  • The lack of provision of education and healthcare facilities is shocking when this is proposed for so many new homes.
  • The “potential of this location to deliver district wide leisure requirements is not yet known, and further work to understand this wider offer will be required” surely this should be known due to the size of the development proposed.
  • The proximity to Billingshurst is acknowledged and there has been large scale development in this area which makes market absorption more questionable.
Proposed Change Do not take this site forwards since it does not meet requirements set in the Local Plan and comments shown above. This is not a sustainable location and does not have services and facilities for its future residents and the site does not intend to provide or supply any of the shortfall.
Due to the proposed large scale of this site between 3,500 and 4,000 it is abhorrent that it does not attempt to cater for Gypsy and Traveller accommodation.
I do not see how it is possible for this site to generate 4,000 jobs (the claimed 1 per unit) when it is not located in accessible distance to any employment and the enly jobs proposed on the site are a high street, library and country club/hotel the combined total of jobs would not even reach 500 so this is a work of fiction with no substance to back up the claim.
There are no train stations and only limited pavements to enable safe walking to local facilities and services.
This site does not provide any on site education facilities and this would lead to those in the locality being swamped with no ability to meet the huge increase in demands.
The promise of a link to Brinsbury College is misleading since this is a small specialised agricultural college not a primary or secondary school, and the employment opportunities on the campus are limited – another poor baseless claim for this site. The majority of the site would have to cross the railway to access Brinsbury College which is not safe and there is no safe pavement for walking or cycling from the site. Education needs to be corrected it is not green but red since there is no provision on or close to the site and no sustainable modes of transport to enable students to access it safely, the text recognised that “Further work is required to understand in more detail how the educational needs arising from this new development could be met, although it is recognised that this will to some extent depend on feedback from West Sussex County Council”. Until West Sussex County Council give positive feedback supporting this site it must be marked as RED for education.

This site does not provide any on site healthcare facilities and this would lead to those in the locality being swamped with no ability to meet the huge increase in demands. Health needs to be corrected it is not green but red since there no provision on or close to the site.
The access to the site is split by a railway and there is only one crossing on the northern edge of the site. A crossing is proposed but this is not in the gift of the developer or HDC since the railways are owned and managed by Network Rail. This promise is empty and should be disregarded especially when it is reported in the text for Site Suitability Summary that “there is currently a lack of endorsement from Network Rail for the provision of a new bridge over the railway which forms part of the re-routing of the B2133….”.
The site is currently serviced by B roads and unclassified roads within the site. This will lead to traffic chaos and due to the location residents will be forced to rely on their private cars and make all their journeys by private car.
This is not a sustainable location and does not have services and facilities for its future residents and the site does not intend to provide or supply any of the shortfall.
The A29 is a former Roman Road and of great archaeological importance.
The protected species on the site has been acknowledged but the impact to it has not been taken into account when looking at biodiversity which should be red not green since it is on a site known designated Special Area of Conservation. Please correct this.
The claims made by this site need to be verified e.g.
 The claim it will provide “one new job per home”, this is flawed. The suggestion that a library which I assume has the go ahead from WSCC & if not is then not going to happen, a new high street which I assume has the relevant businesses lined up ready to open new shops and a country club/hotel again is a business interested in this venture are going to provide between 3,500 and 4,000 new jobs is wrong, the true number would be lucky to exceed 200 jobs.
 The claim that a new bridge over the railway can be delivered – this is not in the gift of the developer or HSDC and Network Rail have not endorsed this claim.
 The lack of provision of education and healthcare facilities is shocking when this is proposed for so many new homes.
 The “potential of this location to deliver district wide leisure requirements is not yet known, and further work to understand this wider offer will be required” surely this should be known due to the size of the development proposed.
 The proximity to Billingshurst is acknowledged and there has been large scale development in this area which makes market absorption more questionable.
Attachments