Web viewComments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating...

Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council

Responses to the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Development Plan Consultation (Regulation 14) which ran from 14/7/15 to 8/9/15.

Responses from Staplefield residents and developers:

Sue Tuckwell Page 1Bob Birthwright (husband of owner of Cuckfield Road, site) Pages 2-5Colin Bendall Page 5Maria Fielding (joint owner of Tanyards Field site) Pages 5-16Elliott Fielding(joint owner of Tanyards Field site) comments on Neighbourhood Plan Pages 17-71Elliott Fielding (joint owner of Tanyards Field site) comments on Sustainability Appraisal Pages 71-98

Sue Tuckwell

As a long standing resident I welcome the findings of the Neighbourhood Plan for the Staplefield Ward.

4 In particular I agree with the the Spatial Strategy :

4.3 Staplefield being within High Weald AONB is not considered a suitable location for expansion.

As there are sufficient locations elsewhere within the parish for development I think it is vital to keep some villages within the district as they are. Staplefield has seen an increase naturally over the last few years with the conversion of two large houses into flats. (see 6.5 and 6.7)

4.13 : Mid Sussex Plan endorses a policy of non-development in an AONB and would consider a development only where it would conserve or enhance natural beauty.

I think that this policy should override any plans for development in Staplefield.

7 Leisure and Recreation

Much is made of the Ansty Recreation Ground and the Ansty Village Centre as being the focal point of village life.

The same could be said of Staplefield Village Hall. It is the meeting place for every village organisation, classes, social occasions, private parties and much else, and has been since 1914. Since 1947 it has been run as a Registered Charity by Trustees elected by the village and nominees from village organisations. As such I feel that it is as deserving of support and improvement as the Pavilion which serves a much more restricted set of users, and mainly only by villagers on the annual Fete day.

10 Economy

There are several sets of offices within Staplefield, mostly farm building conversions, which must provide employment for dozens of people.

Page 1 of 99

1. Bob Birthwright

Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood plan was published on the 16th July 2015.

The parish council neighbourhood plan executive group have done a good job in

conjunction with members of the residents associations from Brook Street, Ansty

and Staplefield, despite their terms of reference being changed as time went on.

I am a parish councillor and was a member of the Neighbourhood Plan executive

group until my wife purchased a plot of land in the centre of Staplefield, which she

decided to put up for consideration in the neighbourhood plan. After a two year wait

the plan was published and the sites for development were chosen in the parish.

They consisted of two sites, bordering each other and consisting of 26 houses, in

Ansty. Nothing else was chosen for the rest of the parish for the remaining 21 years

of the plan.

_____________________________________

I am disappointed that the NP didn’t take a more pro active approach and see how it

could improve the local environment, bring a bit of vitality to our villages and

improve the facilities the parish has to offer. There were no real conclusions in the

report other than to build at the two sites in Ansty. Of course the trouble has been

that the older members of the community have a disproportionate say in the affairs

of the parish. Nimbys are everywhere, while the youngsters are too busy working or

moving away.

My wife and I have lived in Staplefield for 28 years and as a parish councillor I try and

do my best to improve life in the village. Staplefield has a very conservative,

middle/old age population and for the most part they try to resist change.

Staplefield village has two pubs, a cricket pitch and pavilion, 2 churches, 2 schools, 2

bus shelters and a village hall. For some reason there is no village boundary but

Page 2 of 99

there is a conservation area and this makes it a protected site in the AONB, although

any sensible person would agree that this is quite a thriving village, albeit with an

aging population.

-2-

We want it to be strong, stable and have a sustainable economy, but doing nothing

here will jeopardise the viability of local businesses and then the fabric of local

society will deteriorate.

The housing needs survey 2012 and the SHMA pointed out that Staplefield needed

more 1-2 bedroom low cost housing (59%) for older people and young first time

buyers, as well as some 5 bedroom houses (17%).

Ironically the neighbourhood plan (2.22) showed that young people in the

community were leaving at a rate of 11 per year (401 out 390 in) with the headline

“Ansty and Staplefield is a place popular with young people bringing up families

and also retirees but sees young adults leave to live elsewhere”. The NP did not

conclude from this that young people had nowhere to live because nothing was

being built. Youngsters that have grown up in Staplefield, would like to live and work

in Staplefield, but outdated planning policies are forcing them out. Without younger

people coming to the village, or villagers children staying in the village, the village

will decline and become unsustainable. The pubs will go, the churches and schools

will go and cricket will no longer be played on the common. The loss of local

employment will be catastrophic. Many nearby villages have suffered this fate and

have merely turned into dormitories with no real community spirit. To leave the

village for 21 years without change, is a recipe for stagnation and decay.

Staplefield badly needs any injection of young blood to better support these local

Page 3 of 99

amenities. S106 or C.I.L. monies could refurbish the dilapidated cricket pavilion,

repair the bus shelters and improve the children’s playground on the common.

If my wife’s application is included in the NP, the village hall would have an extended

car park and a small shop that will attract passing trade to stop and enjoy our village,

as well as employ local people. Her site is between two built up areas in the village

and outside the conservation area and includes a 30% proportion for low cost

housing. We live in the village and don’t want to see it spoilt or devalued. To do

nothing though isn’t a plan for the future, its negligence.

The NPPF says that there should be a presumption in favour of development and the

draft local plan asks for 11,050 homes to be built by 2031 and several planning

applications have been passed in the local AONB, even in conservation areas,

because the council cannot demonstrate a 5 year land supply. So building in the

AONB is not out of the question, if there is sufficient need.

In the scoping report, section 4

NEIGHBOURHOOD PLAN PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES, it says;

We want to keep the village feel of our communities, and keep it a thriving and

attractive Parish, a desirable place to live, work and visit. Our aim is to maintain,

and where possible, improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of our

area and the quality of life for all, now and in the future.

-3-

If the parish plan does nothing in Staplefield, it won’t “thrive” and it’s going to be

hard to “improve the social, economic and environmental wellbeing of our area and

the quality of life for all, now and in the future,” If nothing changes.

In conclusion therefore, Staplefield is a very attractive village, close to Gatwick,

Haywards heath, Brighton, with good Bicycle, bus and rail links locally and to London.

Page 4 of 99

It’s a crime to do nothing in the village for the next 21 years. Half the population will

be dead by then and it will be up to the remainder to sort out the problems, but it

will be too late.

I hope the parish council will re consider our application to build at Cuckfield Road

Staplefield (DM/15/2783) and see it as an improvement to the village and to help it

thrive going forward to 2031 and therefore should be included in the Neighbourhood

Plan.

2. Colin BendallThis is to confirm my conversation with yourself and Brad at the Visioning morning held in Staplefield Village Hall on the 5th September. Having read the draft plan I would like you to know that I found it a well prepared document, with each policy statement clearly identified and supported with relevant information.The preparation of this document was obviously a large task and I would like to compliment all concerned for a job well done.I now hope that it will pass all reviews, without major change, so that it can be adopted, following the referendum, and used to shape our Parish in the future.

4. Maria Fielding (resident and joint owner of Tanyards Field, Staplefield)As advised by the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council Website the Ansty & Staplefield

Neighbourhood Plan Pre-Submission Consultation Draft (Regulation 14) July 2015 and the Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 consultation period for both documents ends on 8th September 2015 at midnight.

Please find my comments as requested addressed to the parish clerk for consideration in the ongoing work for the Neighbourhood Plan and to enable factual errors to be corrected.

I am aware and content that all comments received will be publicly available and may be included on the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council website.

1. How was it determined that Ansty was “the only settlement of any size” as detailed on page 17 paragraph 4.1 of the draft neighbourhood plan?

As shown below this is factually incorrect & the plan now needs to be and amended accordingly. a. ONS Census 2011 figures as shown in MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May

2015 Table 1 – Population estimates (Category 1-4 settlements), 2011

Page 5 of 99

i. Ansty = 332 people ii. Staplefield = 401 people

This clearly shows Staplefield has the larger population.

The ONS statistics shown in the table below clearly show Staplefield is the largest village. It is strange that this detail is included for Brook Street but not for either Ansty or Staplefield so I have shown it in the table below:

2011 Census data: MSDC District A&SPC Ansty Staplefield

ONS Sub AREA Reference:

E00161782 E00161781

Usual Resident Population, 2011 (KS101EW)

139860 1756 332 401

Total built dwellings (buildings/single address) , 2011 (KS401EW)

58712 677 133 171

total households with one or more usual resident, 2011

57409 641 129 154

(KS402EW)

2. Can you explain the chart on page 18 of the Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment? I asked on the 3rd September but nobody was able to answer me and the Clerk was going to look into getting the details and method used to compile this chart for me.

3. How did the chart on page 18 of the Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment reach its scorings? I have some concerns since the following for my site are not correct:

• How is Tanyards Field negative (– ) for: 1/Soc Housing? All the options presented for this site included Social and affordable housing elements as detailed in both the meeting we had with NPEX on the 3rd November 2012 and within the information we supplied both at the meeting in hard format and electronically post. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria.

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 2/Soc – Community? This site is situated within safe pedestrian access (less than 50m) from the Common which can only be classified as a major green space, many foot paths, in fact one runs next to the site, the site is connected to Nymans, Balcombe, Slaugham and Handcross by footpath and Sustrans National Cycle Route 20 as detailed in DP20 of the MSDC District Plan 2014-2031 runs through this village, many bridle paths are also close by. If you refer to an Ordnance Survey map you will see this level of detail. The bus stop is approximately 100m from this site, the village is services by both commercial services and also the Handcross Community Bus. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++.

Page 6 of 99

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 3/Soc – Services? This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++. As shown below the site is located within easy walking distances of all of the services within this village as shown below:

Service provided

Ansty Brook Street

Staplefield

Community Hall/ Centre

X

Convenience store

X

Dispensary x X Health Centre/Doctors facility

x X

Library x X Petrol Station X x

Place of Worship

x X (two)

Public House x X (two) School (Infants) x X School (Primary) x X

Play area (all types)

X

Playing pitches (all types) X Sports Pavilion/

Changing facilities

X

Off peak public transport service to towns/local service centres

x X

Source Mid Sussex District Council Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Table 6 Settlement Services

How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 4/Soc –Landscape? This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria given MSDC’s positive assessment.

The site assessment provided by MSDC for this neighbourhood plan process is shown below:

Site Reference: 641 (HC/11) Parish AS Ward Site location Tanyards Field, Tanyard Lane, Staplefield (Larger option inclusive of Site: 596)

Site use(s)1: U0131 - Unused Land

Gross site area 0.6 hectares

Page 7 of 99

Site Suitable: The site is within the High Weald AONB and adjacent to Staplefield Conservation Area. The wider site has established boundaries and topography that slopes gently southwards, facing away from further views and would have minimal landscape impacts. There is built development beyond the wider site's east, west and southern boundaries. The proposed site is located within a larger field boundary with no immediate defensible boundaries to the west which could put pressure on wider parts of this land holding to be developed. However, the landowner has suggested additional boundary treatment can be provided to avoid this. Development closer to the northern boundary may have greater impact on wider countryside due to the topography of the land. Development of the site would use an existing access onto Tanyard Lane to create a suitable access point. The provision of an additional 6 dwellings would significantly increase the use of the lane. However materially the lane would still be very lightly trafficked. Whilst the Lane is, in places single track with no room for two opposing vehicles to pass, given the likely low trafficked nature the frequency is likely to be low. Further information would be required at a planning application stage to confirm this.

From the conservation perspective, it is possible that a very low level of dispersed residential development could be accommodated within the eastern portion of the proposal site without compromising the character of the conservation area. However, it will be essential that any such development integrates comfortably into the sensitive local context and the following design guidance must be carefully considered: 1) The level of new development must not be such that highway improvements are required to Tanyard Lane, as its present informal character contributes much to the pervasive rural ambience of the conservation area. 2) The locally typical linear pattern of development must be respected and access to new dwellings provided from the existing lane. The formation of suburban features such as cul-de-sacs, crescents and lengthy paved driveways should be entirely avoided. 3) A strong western boundary to the site must be formed so that new development is restricted to a linear pattern and precedent is not set for subsequent ‘backland’ development. The new boundary must be well planted with dense shrubbery and so new buildings do not intrude into countryside views from the northwest. 4) The new level of development must be consistent with the surrounding dispersed, spacious grain, with the new, modestly scaled built form sitting unobtrusively in well planted, spacious settings and remaining barely visible from Tanyard Lane. 5) The character of the Staplefield conservation area derives from diverse phases of development over several centuries and new development which replicates historic styles is counter to the way in which the area has evolved. New

Site Available: The site has been made available for development through the Parish Neighbourhood Plan and the Housing

Site Achievable:

SupplyDevelopment of this site is considered to be Document. acheiveable.

Constraints / Action required:

Further details of existing traffic flows along Tanyard Lane as well as information on existing lane widths would need to be provided as part of any planning application. This information should assist in demonstrating that the lane is lightly trafficked and that there are places for vehicles to pass. Improvements in the form of passing places would be beneficial if possible and in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area.

Page 8 of 99

The advice from the Conservation Officer (21/5/13) needs to fully accorded with to ensure that any development on this site accords with Policy B12 of the Local Plan and successfully preserves the character of the conservation area.

Net developable area (ha): 0.6 Proposed site density (dph): Deliverable (1-5 years) 0 Dwellings Developable (6-10 years) 6 Dwellings Developable (11 years +) 0 Dwellings Not Currently developable Overall Conclusion

Site would require allocation through relevant Neighbourhood Plan. The site is relatively enclosed to wider views by the larger sites' established boundaries and topography that slopes gently southwards. Access to this site would use an existing access point. The provision of an additional 6 dwellings would significantly increase the use of the lane. However materially the lane would still be very lightly trafficked. The proposal does though raise the possibility of further opposing vehicle movements along the lane itself, although considering the likely low trafficked nature, the frequency is likely to be low. Further information would be required to demonstrate that this is the case. From the conservation perspective, a dispersed level of carefully designed new development, fully in accordance with the above guidelines, may have the potential to accord with Policy B12 and successfully preserve the character of the Staplefield conservation area. The site is within the High Weald AONB and any major development would need to meet the requirements of the NPPF, paragraph 116.

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 5/Soc – Climate? If you had taken up our numerous offers of dialogue you would have established that our proposal for all options given on Tanyards Field would have contained both elements of green energy generation and sustainable water usage technology, this was defined within the pack we provided for the meeting with site owners on Saturday 3rd November 2012 which detailed on page 3 “It is proposed that each house will be individually designed to enhance the character of the village. Design and energy efficiency will be paramount and we will work closely with MSDC and Ansty and Staplefield Parish to ensure that the highest standards are achieved….” . All of the options ranging from just 2 houses to 6 would have reduced the parish’s impact on climate change. If you refer to the Mid Sussex Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 table 2 you would see that a large percentage of 28.9% work from home, this has to be the most sustainable since no travel is required, and Table 3 shows a higher than district average travel to work on foot. The primary school is very close & I walk my daughter to school in less than four minutes each day and other services are listed above in my response to 3/Soc services which shows that this site is actually sustainably located and has little need for journeys to be made in an unsustainable manner. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++.

• How is Tanyards Field score (0) for 6/Env - Transport & Movement? As shown for objective 3 the table detailing distance the site is from services clearly show Tanyards Field is in an ideal location to enable future residents to walk or cycle to both the village centre and the numerous services provided in Staplefield.

Page 9 of 99

Handcross is less than 1 mile from Staplefield and this village has a shared service of the Health Centre, pharmacy, Dentist etc and this is easily walkable or cycleable. There has been no mention of the bus services that support this village which MSDC have considered to be better than that which services Ansty as detailed within Table 6 – Settlement Services of the Mid Sussex Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015. In addition Staplefield is serviced by the Handcross Community bus as detailed previously in this response. Staplefield is to get a speed reduction from 40mph limit to 30mph as detailed in this plan. What data has been provided by the Police for the parish to show that some sites are better than others for this criteria e.g. Cuckfield Road versus Tanyards Field which are both in the same village yet have been given different scores? Staplefield has a Safer Routes to school and has dropped curves located at strategic crossing points throughout the village e.g. to cross from

Brantridge Lane to Common and then across to the Playground and the Victory Public House, there are many more and a simple walk around the village will show you where these are.

This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++. • How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 7/Env - Heritage? How can Tanyards Field be

negatively assessed when it is not visible from the Conservation Street Scene of Staplefield? Was use made of the site assessment conducted by MSDC for the neighbourhood plan process as shown above in my comments on 4/Soc –Landscape? Any development on Tanyards Field would actually enhance the village since it would have to conform with MSDC planning and Conservation requirements and be in line with the High Weald AONB Management Plan.

This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++. • Tanyards Field is shown to have a + in the box for 9/Env Character yet this box is coloured

red, please amend this to show this as a green box. • How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 10/Econ - Commercial? As listed above in this

response there is significant village based businesses and Table 2 – Settlement Services of the Mid Sussex Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 shows that a very high percentage 28.9% of Staplefield residents choose and are able to work from home. How has the other site in Staplefield been assessed to have no impact either positive or negative yet Cuckfield Road is in the same village only a short distance from Tanyards Field? This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria.

• In light of this corrected scoring for Tanyards Field a review of the selection of sites should happen this may result in Tanyards Field being selected as suitable for inclusion as a chosen option for development within this plan.

Where is the methodology to enable the table above to be interpreted? With no key or weightings for criteria it is impossible to understand how decisions on sits have been made. I raised this at the meeting in Staplefield Village Hall on the 5th September 2015 and it was agreed that this was an issue that should be looked into.

4. Can you explain the thought process to determine that Ansty should have all the new housing? I cannot see why or how this addresses the parish’s needs.

Page 10 of 99

Page 11 of 99

5. How have the final sites been chosen? a. Can you explain the process? b. Can you tell me which data was used? c. Was this data weighted in any way? d. Were any sources of data collected not used?

6. How was a decision reached to select an option that was not put into the public forum

during the consultation? (The site at Bolney Road in Ansty that is only part of the site put forwards.)

7. Did any sites offer enabling donations? (Site owners were all asked when we came in November 2014 to talk to NPEX)

8. Did enabling donations factor in the site selection process

9. Were the offer of any enabling donations taken up for the parish?

10. SHLAA is in the glossary how were the SHLAA assessment used?

11. Where are the engagement outputs that form the basis of the plan e.g. the outputs from the visioning days & all open meetings?

12. How many open meetings have there been? a. Where are the minutes/notes from these meetings?

13. How has the need of household size been determined?

14. Not all older people want to downsize – inheritance threshold has increased & pension rules

have changed coupled with many helping the Economy by assisting with child care for their children, I think this is a rash and unproven statement.

15. Para 5.8 of the draft plan – what evidence and where is this shown?

16. What is considered affordable in this parish?

Questions re the Second Questionnaire

1. How were the questions in the second questionnaire agreed?

Page 12 of 99

2. Why has it asked different questions for the different villages? E.g. re housing in Ansty rank 1-5 yet for Staplefield & Brook Street Yes/no/depends what it is.

3. How are the “not stated and Not sure” being treated for questions 11, 14 and 16? (these are questions re Built up area boundaries.)

4. Can you explain how the stats were used please? It is impossible to see how the differing questions for ranking of sites in Ansty versus a Agree/disagree/ Not stated/ Not sure question was posed for sites in Staplefield and Brook Street can be reconciled to show which have the most support.

This is shown in the table below which uses the data produced from Questions 12, 13, 15 and 17 of the questionnaire:

1st Preference

2nd Preference

3rd Preference

4th Preference

5th Preference

Aggregated Preference

Average over 5 choices

No opinion 64 66 73 84 96 383 76.6

Barn Cottage

16 23 21 24 20 104 20.8

Ansty Cross Pub

52 18 18 11 4 103 20.6

Holly Bank 19 15 8 29 14 85 17

Bolney Road

27 15 15 10 10 77 15.4

Ansty Cross Garage

5 32 9 15 13 74 14.8

Challoners 5 6 18 14 21 64 12.8

The Lizard 7 11 23 11 8 60 12

Ansty Farms South

7 18 3 10 6 44 8.8

Ansty Farms North

13 5 13 4 8 43 8.6

West Riddens

4 3 12 6 13 38 7.6

Little Orchards

3 10 9 4 9 35 7

222 222 222 222 222 1110 222

Tanyards Field

52 Only one option of agree was given for these three sites

Cuckfield Road

69

Sugworth Farm

55

If one considers the maximum score for any site the ranking is:

Page 13 of 99

Cuckfield Road (69 votes) = 1st Choice,

Sugworth Farm (55 votes) = 2nd Choice (site now withdrawn),

Tanyards Field & Ansty Cross Pub (now developed) (52 votes) = Joint 3rd Choice.

Bolney Road (27 votes) = 4th Choice Holly Bank (19 votes) = 5th Choice & Barn Cottage (16 votes) = 6th Choice

If one considers the maximum score (first Choice or Agree) for any site the ranking is:




Bolney Road (27 votes) = 4th Choice

Holly Bank (19 votes) = 5th Choice

Barn Cottage (16 votes) = 6th Choice

If one looks at the average score achieved by each site in Ansty Vs the sites in Staplefield and Brook Street, since one can only conclude that any form of ranking is equivalent to an Agree yet one cannot count 5 opportunities to say agree against only one for Staplefield and Brook Street sites hence the use of average for the sites in Ansty, then the ranking is as follows:

1st = Cuckfield Road with 69 votes 2nd = Sugworth farm with 55 votes but this site has now been withdrawn 3rd = Tanyards Field with 52 Votes 4th = Barn Cottage with 20.8 votes 5th = Ansty Cross Pub with 20.6 votes – this site has already been fully developed 6th = Holly Bank with 17 votes 7th = Bolney Road with 15.4 votes 8th = Ansty Cross Garage with 14.8 votes - this site has been withdrawn 9th = Challoners with 12.8 votes 10th = The Lizard with 12 votes 11th = Ansty Farms South with 8.8 votes 12th = Ansty Farms North with 8.6 votes 13th = West Riddens with 7.6 votes 14th = Little Orchards with 7 votes If this method was not used please can you provide the details of the method used to select sites.

Page 14 of 99

Q12, 13, 15

Tanyards Field Cuckfield Rd Sugworth Farm

Agree 52 69 49

Not Sure 67 63 72

Disagree 96 84 80

Not Stated 7 6 21

Total Responses = 222 222 222

Agree + Not Sure = 119 132 121

“Not sure” is not “Disagree”, if people were opposed they would have marked “Disagree”.

Page 15 of 99

“ Not sure” should be followed with further dialogue to enable conclusive results to be produced. Accordingly what weighting has “Not Sure” been given since the questionnaire gave this option this must have been established prior to the analysis.

When one examines the total of responses received for “Agree” and “Not Sure” the numbers achieved for all three sites exceeds half of the respondents as shown in the table above.

How are the “not stated and Not sure” being treated for questions 12, 13 & 15? (these are re site selection)

General comments:

• Good start but facts need checking comments reviewed to ensure that the final plan reflects the community involvement.

• I thought this was an opportunity to help showcase this fantastic parish – to do this more details are needed, especially for Staplefield which seems rather poor in comparison to Ansty or Brook Street. There is a myriad of information available on the Staplefield Website, via Common Interests, St Mark’s School website or Staplefield Anorak to name a few starting points.

o I can’t find the chapter detailing all of Staplefield’s facilities and services – where is it?

o Why has Staplefield’s chapter been dumbed down even though I know considerable referenced and factually correct detail has been provided? o How come Brook Street’s “secret rowing club” is included yet all of the open named and advertised clubs and societies in Staplefield are not?

o Why has the PC’s survey done on the Staplefield common not been included and important environmental/ecological data?

o Why has the fungi survey done on St Mark’s Churchyard, Staplefield not been included and important environmental/ecological data?

o How was it determined that noise was an issue in Staplefield

• If the MSDC’s Settlement Hierarchy had been reflected in the village chapters this may have levelled the playing field.

• Have the High Weald AONB Management team been consulted or asked for advice? • Why has AiRS stats and data been used in preference to the ONS stats – even though ONS is

stated to be the preferred option.

• How were the photos chosen – same ones and not showing the fabulous parish we live in – Staplefield has an archive + photo competition every year at summer horticultural show.

Civil Infrastructure Plan (CIP)

• How/when will the CIP be shown?

Page 16 of 99

• Why have the Ansty Village Centre, Staplefield pavilion and playgrounds been selected with no discussion at Parish Council meetings?

• What sort of sums are to be used for these projects? • Which playgrounds – A&SPC manage Staplefield but MSDC do Ansty’s? • How will projects in the CIP be prioritised? • How will monies collected in the parish from CIL be safeguarded for community projects and be

held from going towards traffic calming measures resultant from Burgess Hill developments?

• Page 32 chapter 11 of the draft plan - Who will pay for the traffic calming measures that are resultant from N.Ark etc?

• What happens if CIL is not forthcoming & all the houses are through planning before it comes in?

Is the only green space of value the Ansty Rec? - a.

is this owned by MSDC?

b. Who owns the Ansty Rec extension?

Para 7.13 of the draft plan- Doesn’t Ansty already have a second pitch? a. Is this for a third?

b. Who pays for these additional facilities?

How can we nominate additional assets for the villages?

Thank you for this opportunity to express my views, I feel I have been positively excluded from the process due to the fact that my husband and I own a site that is to be considered within this process and that I am a Parish Councillor and so I leave all meetings when this topic is discussed to ensure probity is maintained. I am clear in all my conversations with parish residents where the topic is raised that I am not involved in the neighbourhood plan and have no influence over its development.

I am however surprised that I have not had any contact as a landowner, I was under the impression that this plan was to be developed with both the community and land owners and not behind closed doors.

It is encouraging that the draft plan has come such a long way & may I wish the team doing the next steps the best of luck in securing a sustainable future for us all.

Page 17 of 99

3. Elliott Fielding (resident and joint owner of Tanyards Field, Staplefield) Comments on the draft Neighbourhood Plan.

As advised by the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council Website the Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood

Plan Pre-Submission Consultation Draft (Regulation 14) July 2015 consultation period ends on 8th September 2015 at midnight, please find my comments as requested addressed to the parish clerk for consideration in the on-going work for the Neighbourhood Plan and to enable factual errors to be corrected. I am aware and content that all comments received will be publicly available and may be included on the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council website.

1. Paragraph 1.1 the word Parish is missing – it should read “This document represents the Neighbourhood Plan for Ansty and Staplefield Parish”.

2. Paragraph 1.2 “…The Plan has been prepared by the community through the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group (ASNPSG).”

Who are the ASNPSG all of the minutes refer to the NPEX. ?

Are there terms of reference and membership details for the ASNPSG?

Where do I find the minutes for the meetings this group has had and a record of what decisions were made, when and how recommendations agreed?

It is worthy of note that as of today 08/09/2015 there have been no NPEX or ASNPG or any other neighbourhood plan related meetings within this parish since 14th July 2014 as shown on the A&SPC Website.

Staplefield Residents association meets only once a year for the AGM there have been no other Staplefield Residents Association meetings that the members can go to and the minutes are not published on any website.

3. Paragraph 1.3 “…The process of producing a plan has sought to involve the community as widely as possible and the different topic areas are reflective of matters that are of considerable importance to Ansty and Staplefield, its residents, businesses and community groups.” Where can the record be found as to:

What consultation/involvement took place with the businesses?

Which businesses were consulted/involved?

The results from this consultation/involvement with businesses?

What consultation/involvement took place with the community groups?

Which community groups were consulted/involved?

The results from this consultation/involvement with community groups?

I cannot find any reference to these consultation/involvements and this surprised me since my family and I are heavily involved in village life in Staplefield and its community groups by which I presume you are referring to the St Mark’s Church

Page 18 of 99

http://www.stmarysparish.org.uk/locations/st - marks - staplefield/ , St Mark’s School http://www.st - marks.w - sussex.sch.uk/ and Friends of St Mark’s School http://www.st - marks.w sussex.sch.uk/pta_detail.asp?Section=14&Ref=189 , Staplefield Village Hall, Staplefield Fete and again I was alarmed that none of these appear in this plan.

4. Paragraph 1.4 “… The policies themselves are presented in the blue boxes. It is these policies against which planning applications will be assessed…." This should have the following added after the word “assessed” by the Parish Council once the Neighbourhood Plan has passed referendum. It should be made clear that until referendum has been passed this plan is draft and so has less weight.

5. Paragraph 1.5 “Figure 1.1 shows the boundary of the Neighbourhood Plan area, which is contiguous with the boundary of Ansty and Staplefield parish apart from a small area in the far south-east of the parish which is proposed for the Burgess Hill Northern Arc in the Mid Sussex Emerging District Plan and land to the east of the railway line between Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill, this latter part being planned for within the Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan.”

Remove the word below – when printed it is not below

Have these residents in the not included “small areas” (yet large populations with even larger numbers of housing proposed) been included in consultation of this plan? If so what weight is given to their opinion since they will not form part of the final plan area?

Have those developing the plans for the areas “not included” i.e Burgess Hill Town Council and Haywards Heath Town Council and Cuckfield Council canvassed the views of those not covered by the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood plan area? What do they (the councils who will inherit these small area) think of this passing of “small areas” from the parish? What do those being excluded think of this decision?

Will the exclusion of these small areas impact the parish boundary?

Will the parish still get the new homes bonus and CIL/S106 for any new homes in these not included areas? This is especially important since they are forecast to make up the majority of the users for the planned new Ansty Village Centre, and will accordingly increase the traffic in Ansty and this increased traffic may require CIL to be spent on traffic calming measures rather than other community projects.

What benefit will this parish get from handing “…this latter part” to Haywards Heath Neighbourhood Plan?

Have the small areas not included in the plan area (although probably the most impacted by development in the District) had the opportunity to be involved in the development of the neighbourhood plans that will cover them?

6. Para graph 1.5: If a “small area” which is for strategic development has been ruled out of the plan area the plan area decreases and so the population within the new area requires sufficient development within the agreed plan area to meet its needs. To try to say whatever is not delivered within this plan can go into the strategic development will cause the houses within this development to be claimed as both strategic need for the District and to deliver unmet need of the parish – double counting and still will not meet its residents needs as it will force some members of the community to move to Burgess Hill. Therefore we will be ignoring our Parish need and passing over to Burgess Hill with no agreement from either those in the parish who will be impacted by this decision or Burgess Hill Neighbourhood Plan.

Page 19 of 99

What is being done to ensure that we do not end up with a need that is not accepted or met within any neighbourhood plan?

7. Paragraph 1.5 Will those who have a connection with the parish wish to live in the strategic developments? I do not see how this meets the local need when these developments are not within walking distances of the village of Staplefield or Brook Street. You may as well ask those being offered houses in the strategic developments a more local option of houses in Handcross or Cuckfield since this would then be within walking distances of their original communities.

8. Paragraph 1.6 “…Neighbourhood plans and orders should not promote less development than set out in the Local Plan or undermine its strategic policies (para.184).” How can the draft plan acknowledge that 132 houses are required yet only propose 41 houses (15 have planning permission already and 26 have been proposed) this is a fraction of the needs? In fact less than a third of the need will be delivered by this plan? It has ruled out the strategic developments of Sand Rocks and the Northern Ark from its plan area and so can not make any claim on houses delivered through these developments having made the decision to rule these areas out of the plan. By only delivering 26 additional houses within this plan when the known need is a minimum of 132 this plan fails paragraph 184 of the NPPF. The plan does not meet all three villages needs.

9. Paragraph 1.7 “The relevant Mid Sussex District Local Plan was adopted in 2004 and, under the guidance provided by the NPPF, is considered to be out of date. There is an emerging Local District Plan covering the period to 2031 which is a material consideration and has provided much of the strategic context for the neighbourhood plan”. This is not what was stated on page 1 paragraph 1.1 so which is correct?

10. Paragraph 1.7 The emerging local District Plan is still in draft and so may change, what reviews will be conducted on the Neighbourhood Plan if the District plan or other circumstances change? This could include for example approval for Gatwick Airport, changes to MSDC policies, or changes to national planning guidance.

11. How will this neighbourhood plan pass review when it does not offer up sufficient housing to meet its identified needs within the Mid Sussex District Plan 2014 – 2031 Pre-Submission Draft June 2015 as set out in the Mid Sussex Housing Provision Paper June 2015, Table 5 - Parish Objectively Assessed Need.

12. Paragraph 1.8 Who forms the ASNP Group? When was the ASNP Group formed? What are the terms of reference for the ASNP Group? Where can I find their register of interests and any associated dispensations?

13. Paragraph 1.8 the following should be available/viewable on the website and included in the evidence base:

Page 20 of 99

A copy of the surveys and questionnaires used,

the dates these were held

the methodology for interpreting the information received as a result of these information gathering exercises:

The interpretation of the responses to the questionnaires and surveys does not enable the full picture to be shown and is not open or transparent.

14. Paragraph 1.8 “a second questionnaire sent to each household specifically to gather views on

the proposed sites for development that were submitted to the ASNPSG” This survey was not submitted to the ASNPSG but to The Clerk so this statement is not correct. As above the survey questionnaire should be shown in addition to the analysis of responses. The interpretation of the responses to the questionnaires and surveys does not enable the full picture to be shown and is not open or transparent. Where can a copy of this questionnaire be found on the website?

How was the analysis done on the responses?

How was the questionnaire determined – i.e. how were the questions chosen, how were the options for response chosen and how was a consistent approach ensured across all villages in the parish? How were the validity of residents verified i.e. checked that they were on the electoral roll for the parish? What method was used to conduct this analysis and interpretation of results?

15. Paragraph 1.8 I do not agree that the responses to the second questionnaire were submitted to

ASNPG – this is not correct they were submitted to the Clerk. 16. Paragraph 1.8 The “events for the community to meet the site developers or owners and see

their outline proposals”; Need to be detailed, including fully viewable information supplied as requested by NPEX.

Some of the information supplied by land owners is not viewable on the website and so this is not in the spirit of openness or transparency. Why have checks on the data put on the website not been made when the information has been uploaded?

how this information and that gained through these events was used in forming recommendations?

I asked for the analysis methodology and the method and criteria used to inform recommendations and conclusions but was told this was not going to be available. How can this be either open or transparent? This could lead to questions of probity especially when developers and land owners submitting sites were asked to detail enabling donations in previous meetings with the NPEX. (Email detailing this is shown below) “Message Received: Oct 05 2012, 01:21 PM From: "Liz Bennett" <[email protected]>

Page 21 of 99

Subject: Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street Neighbourhood Plan - meeting invitation “The group is currently exploring the options for the number and potential locations of any development. The group is keen to hear your ideas for your site and so has invited you to a meeting on the morning of Saturday 3rd November. Once you have confirmed whether you would like to attend I will come back with exact timings and location. The sort of information that is of particular interest includes: • the site location and area • approximate site capacity • whether you are proposing open market housing/ affordable housing or business

accommodation • the planning history of the site - i.e. whether there have been any planning applications

on the site in the past • current land use • whether any contributions would be made towards village infrastructure • any known constraints to the site e.g. access issues, ecological issues, flooding etc. You should allow approximately 30 minutes for the meeting.”

17. Paragraph 1.8 How many is “several open meetings”? where were these held? Who ran these open meetings? What was the agenda or focus of these meetings? Why was the whole process not conducted via open meetings? What was the purpose of these meetings? What opinions were sought in this way and what weighting given to this information? Where are the agenda, findings and minutes from these meetings, this data is not

available on the website? Did any developers or those who owned land submitted to this process attend these

meetings? Were any other developers or landowners of land submitted to this process excluded? How have developers and landowners been involved in any discussions or in the

development of any recommendations? How was the information from these open meetings used to help form

recommendations and polices for the draft plan?

18. Paragraph 1.8 Where can I find the output from the “three Visioning Days to provide information on the Neighbourhood Plan process and gather opinion on key issues”; This output has never been made available

Did this information form the basis for the final site recommendations?

19. Paragraph 1.8 “…publication of all key documents on the Parish Council website”. Which

documents are considered key? I would consider all agenda, minutes, data used and methodology for deriving recommendations were key and should all be available for a minimum.

Page 22 of 99

Sayers Common Neighbourhood Plan considers the following relevant:

Parish Housing Land Availability Assessment (PHLAA)

Planning consultant's Report - Site assessments (1 July 2015)

Sayers Common Housing Land Availability Assessment – Methodology (June 2015)

Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA) – Mid Sussex District Council – May 2015 Given that MSDC provides a dedicated Neighbourhood plan policy officer and other resources and there is a need for these documents within each neighbourhood plan I find it surprising there is not a standard set especially when all will have to pass examination and a referendum. It feels premature to be releasing a draft plan if the background documentation that forms this plan has yet to be finalised and ready to be placed in the public domain to support the draft plan.

The process was to be open and transparent yet much is hidden and not viewable, why is this?

When will all the material be put in the public domain? What is stopping this all being put in the public domain?

20. Paragraph 1.9 Although there was a representative from each Resident Association on the ASNPSG

(which I thought was called NPEX) the required “close connection with the residents of the three settlements, Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street” is questionable. I say this because the only meetings the Staplefield Residents association had were the AGM each year, in each AGM to date there was a declaration that the association had not held any additional meetings.

21. Paragraph 1.9 Who else has been involved in the process (e.g. as set out in the A&SPC Sustainability

Appraisal Incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015, Page 3 paragraph 2.1 “…and volunteers from the community. To inform the Sustainability Appraisal three working groups…”) I have asked numerous times yet the names have not been forthcoming and we have not been able to thank these people.

22. Where have the representatives, volunteers and working groups’ interests and dispensations been recorded?

Have they been checked and reviewed regularly to ensure that no bias was presented within the data?

23. Paragraph 2.2 Page 5 “… probably where its name originated from, Ansty being the Saxon for a ‘tear shaped hill’ why say this if it is not known?

24. Paragraph 2.3 Page 5 “…There are a number of listed houses and houses that show signs of late

medieval origins”.

Page 23 of 99

Where have these listed houses been mapped? How many is a few? In the A&SPC Sustainability Appraisal Incorporating Strategic

Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015, Page 8, paragraph 4.9 it state there are 83 Grade 11 listed buildings – is this all of them are the Gardens at Nymans, Borde Hill and High Beeches also listed?

Are they close to any of the proposed development sites? Why has the Historic England website http://list.historicengland.org.uk where maps and

details are freely available, not been used to show this information, I suggested English Heritage but they have been split since the previous consultation and Historic England now does this function.

25. Paragraph 2.5 Page 5 It has been acknowledged that Ansty suffers from transport issues & high

levels of traffic yet no reference has been made to the MSDC Traffic study “… It is a busy thoroughfare for traffic travelling to and from Haywards Heath, Burgess Hill, the A23 and A24. Over the years, traffic within the village has increased dramatically. This is likely to continue to increase, due to large scale developments in Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill, unless better alternatives are provided.”

In fact the junction of the B2036 and the A272 has been highlighted within the MSDC Transport Study to be a junction that will require extensive mitigation due to the forecast increase in traffic that will use this road as a result of the strategic developments within the District. In addition is development of the Ansty Village Centre, which will be predominantly used by many from outside of the parish mostly from Burgess Hill and Haywards Heath, really feasible without causing even greater traffic issues? This is even more serious since there are already a reported 6000 visits and this is before either the new strategic development in Burgess Hill or the new centre is built.

26. Paragraph 2.7 Page 6 Staplefield was designated a Conservation Area in 1984 yet it still awaits a Conservation Character assessment.

27. Paragraph 2.7 Page 6 “Staplefield probably got its name from ‘staple’, meaning a stake and ‘field’

indicating an area of cleared forest as this part of the Weald was heavily reliant on woodland industries.”

This is not of any value and probably is not good enough – why add this if you do not know? The Oxford English Dictionary also gives the definition of Staple to be: “a. The fibre of any particular variety or sample of wool (in later use also of cotton, flax, or other material for textile processes) considered with regard to its length and fineness; a particular length and degree of fineness in the fibre of wool, cotton, etc.” This definition ties in much closer to the Sheep that is found on the village sign.

28. Paragraph 2.7 Page 6 How many residents are there in Staplefield? This detail is included for Brook

Street. ONS Census 2011 figures as shown in MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015

Table 1 – Population estimates (Category 1-4 settlements), 2011

• Ansty = 332 people • Staplefield = 401 people

Page 24 of 99

This clearly shows Staplefield has the larger population.

29. Paragraph 2.7 Page 6 How many households in Staplefield? The ONS statistics shown in the table

below clearly show Staplefield is the largest village. This detail is included for Brook Street but not for either Ansty or Staplefield so have shown it in the table below.

2011 Census data: MSDC District A&SPC Ansty Staplefield ONS Sub AREA Reference: E00161782 E00161781


139860 1756 332 401


58712 677 133 171

total households with one or more usual resident, 2011 (KS402EW)

57409 641 129 154

30. Paragraph 2.9 Page 7 “There is a stand of scots pines on the northern edge, home to a rookery.” MSDC referred to this as the finest stand of Scots Pines in Sussex not just “home to a rookery” and is one of the most prominent features of the Conservation Street Scene.

This land is owned by MSDC and classified as Amenity Land. Requests were recorded at the visioning days and through consultation events, surveys and

questionnaires to protect these trees. When will the Neighbourhood Plan act upon these continued and consistent requests?

31. Paragraph 2.10 Page 7 “The improvements to the A23 are improving the village environment.

Closure of the Staplefield/Slaugham junction has reduced traffic…”. What traffic monitoring took place to enable the reduction in traffic to be noted? Where was this noise measured from? How much did it reduce by as a result of the A23 improvement? How many residents of Staplefield are impacted by the A23 and its noise?

It seems one size fits all and because Ansty has traffic issues it is presumed that the other villages do too.

32. Paragraph 2.10 Page 7 Why is there no mention of the “safer walk to school scheme” within

Staplefield?

33. Paragraph 2.10 Page 7 “ …More tree planting and the new road surface should reduce noise pollution.”

This has happened so has it had the required impact on noise? If noise has not got less the road surface is not working. I do not agree that noise pollution is a problem for most of those who live in Staplefield so

how was this highlighted as a problem?

Page 25 of 99

This paragraph tries to show Staplefield as a noise and traffic blighted village – have you ever visited the village? If so you would see it is a quintessential English village with little traffic, a busy community involved in many different activities and clubs not a noise blighted rat run.

34. Paragraph 2.10 Page 7 “The change of speed limit through the village from 40mph to 30mph is

another positive feature.” I agree, but when will this happen?

Councillor Bradbury announced in the Parish Council Meeting on Monday 13th July that this reduction was postponed even though WSCC have approved it.

35. Paragraph 2.11 Page 7 “…Some of the village’s timber frame houses survive …” Are you saying this is what is sought?

Staplefield has listed buildings including St Mark’s Church & school yet these and others are not mapped or mentioned – why? The details of which can be found on the Historic England website http://list.historicengland.org.uk/.

36. Paragraph 2.12 Page 7 “Where possible most houses have been extended and modernised.”

What is being said? I read this to be everything has been done and we still need more. Or are you trying to say the character has been reduced by these extensions and modernisations?

With no development proposed for Staplefield or Brook Street what change is proposed to meet the needs of these residents?

37. Why has the information sent in response to previous consultation not been detailed e.g the village

hall, its clubs & society’s the pavilion or the schools, pubs or churches, village fete, bonfire night, listed buildings, Nymans etc.

Without this information an incorrect picture is being portrayed of the village of Staplefield.

You can gain substantiated and correct information from the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Hierarchy and the Staplefield Archive, and Staplefield Website which I know you are aware of.

38. There is no mention of the Internationally recognised BHS three day eventing course at Borde Hill within the Brook Street Section. http://www.bordehillhorsetrials.com/

39. There is no mention of the Borde Hill Gardens within the Brook Street Section.

40. Paragraph 2.15 Page 8 The top most photo chosen for Brook Street is an odd choice it is a pretty

village yet the picture looks like the outside of a protest venue with placards.

41. Paragraph 2.17 Page 8 “Northland still hosts community events in Opal’s Field using the original Brook Street Apple Press for the making of cider”.

Why have Staplefield’s community events been left out they include: • Staplefield Fete • Staplefield Horticultural show • Village Lunches

Page 26 of 99

• Womens Group • Angus Rowland Forgetme Not Walk • Harvest Supper • Carol services • Macmillan Coffee mornings • Barn Dance • Many Church events throughout the year • Friends of St Mark’s events hosted at the school And many others too numerous to

mention.

42. Paragraph 2.17 Page 8 “There is also a secret ‘Brook Street Rowing Club’.” Why have all of Staplefield’s clubs and associations been left out?

Details can be found on the Staplefield Website, in Common Interests, on the noticeboards, and the St Mark’s school website.

43. Paragraph 2.18 Page 9 “There is a commercial element within the hamlet comprising…”. Why

have Staplefield’s commercial elements and businesses been left out of Staplefield’s chapter? They include:

• Stanbridge Park Industrial Estate, Staplefield Lane, Staplefield has six units in Victoria House and motor mechanics businesses.

• The Courtyard, Holmstead Farm, Staplefield has five offices • Holmstead Farm, Staplefield also has Hayward Farming and Contracting, Close

Brothers, Suchnoon Ltd, Beadell’s Tree surgeons, and also an planning application is currently being decided on a large on a large agricultural service centre and a parts distribution facility.

Page 27 of 99

• The Forge Industrial Estate, Cuckfield Road, Staplefield has the following: Mairon Freight, GMIFC, Richard Allitt Associates, F.H.Dixon Construction, Staplefield Livery Yard.

• St Mark’s School, Staplefield • Brantridge School, Staplefield • The Victory Pub and restaurant, Staplefield • The Jolly Tanners Pub and restaurant, Staplefield • Hill House dairy farm, Staplefield • New Barns Gym and Spa, Staplefield • Washlands Stud, Staplefield • The Wings Museum, Staplefield • Solus FS ltd, High Beeches Lane • The Wealth Works, High Beeches Lane • Alchemy Mill, High Beeches Lane, • High Beeches Gardens and tea room and shop • Mudmania, Home Farm, Staplefield • Sparks Farm shop, • Cuckfield Golf Centre • Cuckfield Garden Machinery • Paternosters Farm, Slough Green Lane has fruit, pick your own and other

industrial units

44. Paragraph 2.19 Page 9 “There are a number of well used public footpaths and bridleways…” Why have Staplefield’s public footpaths and bridleways been left out? They can be

found on the West Sussex County Council Website or through the following link: http://www2.westsussex.gov.uk/lvmaps/imap.html

Saying there are a number is not good enough – how has the baseline been reached for

Sustainability theme 2/Soc as detailed in the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 page 14?

45. Paragraph 2.20 Page 9 “The landscape consists of a patchwork of ghyll woodlands, streams

and ponds against an agricultural backdrop. There is an abundance of diverse animal life including otters, bat colonies, deer, badgers, snakes, toads and a wide variety of woodland and farmland birds”.

Why have Staplefield’s internationally important flora and fauna been left out? They include:

• Fungi in Churchyard • Unimproved grassland (AONB classification) and other rare features • Staplefield Common archaic grassland fungi survey – A&SPC Agenda 10th

February 2014 (A&SPC Clerk has a copy)

• Wild Orchids and many more too numerous to mention.

Page 28 of 99

46. Paragraph 2.21 Page 9 “Unless stated otherwise, the profile of the community has come from the 2011 Census and reflects the position for the whole parish, which is slightly larger than the Neighbourhood Plan area. The comparisons made are with the national picture for England.”

Does this truly reflect those who are included in the plan? I ask since it includes those who will be covered in others plans.

Is comparison with the national picture for England representative? The South East has much higher house prices for example and so to compare against national picture puts the parish at a disadvantage and artificially increases the disparity in average house prices.

47. Paragraph 2.21 Page 9 “A slightly above average proportion of children;” What is the proportion and why have schools e.g. St Mark’s School and Brantridge School in Staplefield, the only schools in the parish not been mentioned?

48. Paragraph 2.21 Page 9 “The pattern of migration shows the parish to be popular with young

parents and their children whereas when children reach early adulthood, they appear to be leaving to live elsewhere.”

How was this concluded popularity was not questioned or views sought. What is the age range of “early adulthood”? Do they leave or not? How has this been concluded from ONS stats? Has anyone asked them why they leave? Do they go to University or other further education? Do they come back at a later stage of life? Do we need to keep all children within a few feet of their parents for life?

49. The top figure on Page 10

Why is “Source: ACRE/OCSI/AiRS (2013) Rural community profile for Ansty and Staplefield” being used when ONS did a survey in 2011?

ONS data is considered the most robust form of data available yet the NPEX have chosen a less robust source, why?

50. Paragraph 2.22 Page 10 “Ansty and Staplefield is a place popular with young people bringing up families and also for retirees but sees young adults leave to live elsewhere.”

What is the classification of “young people” – what age range is this? Have the reasons that “young adults” (what age range are these people) leaving to live

elsewhere been explored? Do they return at a later stage of life? How many people does this exodus represent? What is the parish proposing to do to reduce this exodus? Is this a problem or just normal life?

51. Paragraph 2.23 Page 10 “More than 50% of these dwellings are detached, more than double

the national average;” so detached dwellings are a character of the parish.

Page 29 of 99

52. Paragraph 2.23 Page 10 “The affordability ratio is well above the national average, with average house prices more than 20 times the median incomes for the lowest 25% of household incomes;”

The whole of the South East of England has an affordability ratio well above the national average and high average house prices.

What is the Parish trying to do - reduce house prices or just state the status quo? The data shown explains that household incomes are above average so using the

median income for the nation against the parish’s high house prices is not reflective of true affordability in the area. If we have a higher than median (which is a poor statistical measure and should be avoided) income our affordability is higher hence the higher house prices.

Market factors have not been explored, e.g demand versus supply, location of parish making it highly desirable to commute to London or other major employers, the beauty of the area, the excellent schools all of these and many other factors make it a desirable place to live.

The demand is not shown – do we need more market houses? How much?

Do we need more social/affordable housing? • If so how much? • Has the number of people on the housing register been washed against the AiRS

data? • Has the number requesting social/affordable housing been washed against the

acceptance criteria? Expressing a desire is different than having a true need. • Have the numbers been reviewed since the AiRS survey which was released in

March 2012? I ask because Staplefield has had several new families in market housing and a change of tenure for several properties within the Housing Association properties within the village. It is worthy of note MSDC have reviewed housing policy and the number qualifying to be on the housing register has fallen dramatically.

• How many for each village express a first preference are currently on the MSDC Housing Register?

53. Paragraph 2.23 Page 10 “The average price of a detached property is over 40% higher than the

national average.” This is a statement of fact as explored above this has resulted from many market factors.

54. Paragraph 2.23 lower figure on Page 10 The use of median measures within the data Sourced from: ACRE/OCSI/AiRS (2013)

Rural community profile for Ansty and Staplefield why source this data from AiRS when ONS has this data type.

Median is not a sound statistical measure, it does not show the disparity between the highest and lowest or the sample size.

Why has the meaningless figure/graph been added on page 10?

Page 30 of 99

This figure/graph uses data that is already six years out of date and so will be 21 years out of date by the end of the plan.

This graph would indicate that house prices have peaked and are actually falling – is this true?

Why have the measures only shown detached housing – the type that shows the greatest disparity nationally and furthermore affordable housing is rarely detached and most often terraced or flatted/apartment accommodation to reduce costs sufficiently.

What is required? A large number of small units have been built recently Staplefield since 2004 e.g.

Staplefield Court and numerous conversions of rural buildings into two bedroom dwellings.

55. Paragraph 2.23 Page 11 “Ansty and Staplefield is an area where affordability is an issue, coupled with a lack of affordable housing.”

How was this conclusion reached? If incomes are higher isn’t affordability higher too? What is the size of the supply gap for affordable housing? What type of affordable housing is required? Will this profile remain constant over the length of the plan? The ratio of need for market housing vs affordable was three market properties for

every one affordable house when the results were examined from the AiRS survey, why has this not been reflected in this plan?

56. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 why have AiRS data been used when ONS data is available and considerably more robust and is used by MSDC?

57. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “There are nearly 900 economically active residents in the parish” So how many? If you say nearly you must know. Is this more, less or the same than expected?

58. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “Economic activity is at the national average;” What is meant by this?

59. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “Full-time employment is well below the national average;” Why is this of concern to the neighbourhood plan – it has not attempted to do anything

for business, enterprise or employment. Has it been considered that those working part time wish to and may be paid well in

excess of the national average wage for fewer hours? What is the aim here to increase numbers working full time or what?

60. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “Self-employment is very high, at nearly 22% of people aged 16-74;”

Worthy of note children are not able to go into employment before 17 years of age and this rises to 18 years over the length of this plan so this is a poor metric to use.

Page 31 of 99

61. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 Why has ONS data not been used and most data has been taken from “Source: ACRE/OCSI/AiRS (2013) Rural community profile for Ansty and Staplefield”?

ONS is the most robust national and regional data available. Mid Sussex District Council consider ONS the most appropriate data source or they

would not use it. The Mid Sussex HEDNA could also form a source of data, yet this too has not been used.

62. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “Rates of working from home are also very high, at over 10%;” – So

what is the % of home working? MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Table 2 – Distance travelled to work -

Source: Census 2011. To summarize Staplefield has 28.9% mainly work from home and Ansty has 27.4% mainly work for home, the District mean is 18.1%. This shows this parish has a significant percentage of residents who mainly work from home. This is closer to 30% which is considerably over the 10% shown!

If correct figures had been used would any aims, objectives or policies have changed?

63. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “Over half the working population works in highly skilled occupations;”-

What does this tell you – maybe they earn more money and so this makes houses more affordable?

Page 32 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015

64. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “Unemployment is very low;” – So how low is it?

What is the aim or this plan? This means less people in need of affordable or housing association housing assistance.

65. Paragraph 2.24 Page 11 “There is a buoyant local economy of highly skilled, self-employed

people, with many working from home.” Why is there no comment re other socio-economic factors such as levels of education

etc.?

66. Paragraph 2.25 Page 11 “There is a high reliance on car travel for movement, partly linked to the limited amount of public transport available. There are issues relating to speeding vehicles in all three settlements and the traffic is likely to significantly increase with the development of the Burgess Hill Northern Arc. In particular the centre of Ansty will be affected.”

The public transport varies in each village, Staplefield for example has a fair bus service and also a community bus service, but Ansty and Brook Street do not benefit from this same level of service as detailed in MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015, Table 6 – Settlement Services.

Why has no mention been made of MSDC Traffic Study which highlights the issues in Ansty of the junction of the A272 and the B2036?

Why has no mention been made of the community bus service that serves Staplefield?

67. Paragraph 2.26 Page 11 “There are no health facilities located in the parish.” This statement is incorrect the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Table

6 clearly shows that Staplefield benefits from a mobile dispensary service from the Ouse Valley Practice located in Handcross.

68. Paragraph 2.26 Page 11 “Both Ansty and Staplefield have village halls and cricket facilities,

with Ansty also providing for football as well.”

Whilst this is correct the following have been missed off for Staplefield: • St Mark’s School – Staplefield • St Mark’s Church – Staplefield • Our Lady of Fatima Church http://www.stpaulshh.org.uk/ – Roman Catholic

Church Staplefield As an early C19 Baptist chapel converted to a Roman Catholic Church the building, with its attached priests house, is of local interest. An early C19 Baptist chapel, redundant and bought by the Pinney family of Staplefield Court in 1966, together with the adjoining manse. The first mass was said there on October 9th 1966. http://taking - stock.org.uk/Home/Dioceses/Diocese - of - Arundel - and - Brighton/Staplefield Our - Lady - of - Fatima

• Sustrans National Cycle Route 20 runs through Staplefield http://www.sustrans.org.uk/ncn/map/route/route - 20

Page 33 of 99


“Route 20 National Route 20 of the National Cycle Network will connect the River Thames at Wandsworth with Brighton. The route will join and follow National Route 21 at Redhill before branching off at Crawley and crossing the South Downs to Brighton.” Library service in Staplefield

Meeting place for Running Club

Cycle Clubs to name but a few who use Staplefield:

https://brightonandhoveclarion.wordpress.com/tag/staplefield/ http://www.surreyleague.co.uk/courses/staplefields.htm http://www.fccc.org.uk/forum5/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=349 https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/events/details/1899/Pearson - Cycles - Surrey League - Jaunts - 5 - Day http://www.cycle - route.com/routes/Brighton_to_Handcross_and_Newhaven_Loop - Cycle - Route 4374.html http://www.gps - routes.co.uk/routes/home.nsf/RoutesLinksCycle/crawley - to brighton - cycle - route

• Football and Rugby pitches opposite Spark’s farm that Haywards Heath Rugby Club use.

• Golf Course at Spark’s Farm • Staplefield Common used as a take-off site for hot air balloon flights

http://www.hotair.co.uk/location/west - sussex

69. Paragraph 2.27 Page 11 “Over the years, Ansty’s Village Hall and Sports and Social Club have supported a vibrant social and sporting hub both for the inhabitants of the village and the neighbouring communities of Haywards Heath and Burgess Hill. Both organisations operate from a shared building which has a long history of providing a wide community of users the opportunity to participate in long standing clubs and societies (e.g. arts and crafts and gardening) and other social and sporting activities (including football, cricket, stoolball, snooker and darts).”

This is true but what about the clubs and societies in Staplefield which include and are listed on http://www.staplefieldvillage.co.uk/Club - Groups.html :

• Running Club who use the pavilion as a base.

Page 34 of 99


• VILLAGE ASSOCIATION • VILLAGE HALL COMMITTEE • PARISH COUNCIL • FETE/FUN DAY COMMITTEE • Car Show www.staplefieldcarshow.co.uk • NEIGHBOURHOOD WATCH • HORTICULTURAL SOCIETY • WOMEN'S GROUP • Staplefield CRICKET CLUB www.staplefieldcricket.org.uk • The Jolly Tanners Cricket Club • BOOK CLUB • VILLAGE ARCHIVE • ST MARKS CHURCH

PAROCHIAL CHURCH COUNCIL

COMMON INTERESTS [email protected] Our lady of Fatima Church And

others not listed above. Not to mention the Staplefield Village Hall which is in a good state of repair and also the Staplefield Pavilion. Even if you had copied the following from the Staplefield website more detail about this fantastic village would have been provided http://www.staplefieldvillage.co.uk/AboutStaplefield.html :

“ABOUT STAPLEFIELD VILLAGE Staplefield is a thriving, lively community with the two pubs, a parish church, Village Hall and primary school. A number of events are organised throughout the year to bring the village together and combine to give Staplefield its unique character. Since the 1920’s, Staplefield Village has held its annual fete now called ‘Fun Day’ on the green, which takes place on the second May Bank Holiday Monday each year (4th June in the 2012 Jubilee year). It is a traditional village fete with a variety of family entertainment. There’s Maypole dancing, dog agility, dog show, hog roast, Big Band music and funfair rides and a variety of stalls; tea and wonderful homemade cakes are sold in The Pavilion. Alongside the Fun Day, the Annual Vintage Car Show continues to draw some interesting exhibits and a large crowd. Staplefield Common is also a great place to watch the annual London to Brighton Veteran Car Run, normally on the first Sunday in November as well as the historic Commercial Vehicle London to Brighton run in May. For more information about local weather and wildlife visit Staplefield Anorack” http://www.staplefieldanorak.co.uk/

70. Paragraph 2.28 Page 12 “The building is now the only public meeting place in Ansty, the village having lost its church, shop, post office and public house. The building remains in heavy use, despite having passed its useful life many years ago and being very dilapidated.”

Page 35 of 99


Yet there is no mention of Staplefield’s many public meeting places which are very vibrant, well supported and in good repair, these include:

• Victory Public House http://www.thevictorystaplefield.co.uk/ • The Jolly Tanners Public House • Staplefield Village Hall • St Mark’s Church • Our Lady of Fatima Church • St Mark’s School • Brantridge School • Staplefield Pavilion

71. Paragraph 2.28 Page 12 “Over the year people make over 6,000 individual visits to Ansty to

participate in sporting and other recreational activities”. So how many people visit the other villages? This should include visitors to Staplefield who:

• See the annual London to Brighton Car run http://www.vccofgb.co.uk/lontobri/general.html http://www.vccofgb.co.uk/lontobri/time_table - route.html

• London to Brighton Vintage commercial vehicle run Those taking off from the Staplefield common for their hot air balloon flights

Page 36 of 99


Staplefield Village Fete

To watch cricket matches

• To see the Kempe wall paintings in St Mark’s Church • To go to church either St Mark’s or Our Lady of Fatima Church • To eat or drink in the two Staplefield public houses • To visit Nymans Gardens and go on the millennium walks

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/nymans/ For details of the wood land walks look at http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/nymans/things - to - see - and - do/ article 1355799679099/

• By Ramblers who meet in Staplefield • Take their children to one of the two schools And many more besides who enjoy

this lovely village.

72. Paragraph 2.28 Page 12 “…Current use is nevertheless limited as the poor state of the building holds back demand and restricts growth”.

Why is this plan focusing all development in a village that cannot grow its facilities as shown above?

Why is the plan trying to re-invigorate Ansty at the expense of the rest of the parish? Staplefield has a Village Hall too and many other services which have been shown above

in my comments, all of which can accommodate some growth.

73. Paragraph 2.29 Page 12 “A long held vision to develop a new Ansty Village Centre and bring the Village Hall and Sports and Social Club into a single charitable organisation is in hand. A site has been identified on the Recreation Ground and after wide local consultation, planning permission has been granted for a new Village Centre.” Who holds this vision? How much will it cost?

Who will pay for the building works? Who will pay for the maintenance? Will it remain a private members club? How much will traffic in Ansty increase as a result of this proposed facility? Will CIL have to be used for traffic calming measures instead of the new Village Centre in

Ansty to resolve the issues laid out in the MSDC Traffic Study and within the Sustainability Appraisal that accompanies this plan? When will it be built?

74. Paragraph 2.30 Page 12 “The new Centre has the support of The Ansty Village Hall Trust, Ansty

Sports and Social Club, Ansty Residents Association Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council and MidSussex District Council.”

This project has not got funding sufficient to be built and the Parish Council is not in a position to cover the short fall and if it is to loan any monies a referendum on the matter will have to take place.

Page 37 of 99


75. Will Ansty be sustainable when the current Village Hall is demolished? To be classified as

sustainable a settlement requires a minimum of two local services and these are currently the Village Hall and the Garage shop, the demolition of the Village hall to build the Village Centre will render the village of Ansty unsustainable.

76. Paragraph 2.31 Page 12 “The Recreation Ground, abutting the Village Hall, is the only public space in Ansty. It is a facility for organised sports and together with an adjoining field leased by Ansty Sports and Social Club offers cricket, stoolball and football. This space is used informally by the public too, e.g. dog walking and children’s games. In the south-west corner of the Recreation Ground is a children’s playground and car park. It is hoped that the new charitable organisation will eventually manage this whole site together with the new Centre as an integrated community facility.”

Why is there no mention of public spaces in Staplefield or Brook Street? The Common in Staplefield is used for cricket and stoolball, picnicking and children’s

games Staplefield also has a children’s playground which is owned and maintained by Ansty

and Staplefield Parish Council. St Mark’s School (Staplefield) has also got a sports pitch. http://www.st -

marks.w sussex.sch.uk/ Rugby and Football pitches opposite Sparks farm. Golf course at Sparks Farm

Etc.

77. Why is there no mention of any of Staplefield’s facilities – this is as if the whole chapter on

Staplefield has been left out by mistake. – When is this to be corrected? As advised when I commented on the sustainability appraisal, Staplefield has:

- excellent leisure and sports facilities, - a village hall that also holds adult education, - two schools, - two pubs, both of which serve food, - two churches, - a children’s playground, - a large number of businesses - excellent commuting with an excellent network of roads to larger towns and other

local facilities all of which make it a very desirable place to live. Staplefield’s Heritage

St. Marks Church has two separate listings.

1. St Mark’s Church also has fine Kemp wall paintings which the village of Staplefield and Kempe Society have recently restored. These works date from 1869 and are regarded as especially important, representing the earliest of three known examples of Kempe’s wall painting. They contain key elements of Kempe’s figurative work. See Annex 2. http://haywardsheath.inuklocal.co.uk/news/staplefield - wall - paintings

Page 38 of 99


2. St Mark’s Church in Staplefield possesses seven Kempe windows

including some of his very earliest window designs. 3. The Homere Rose at St Mark’s Church

Planted in 1862 this is in the Guinness Book of Plant Records – The oldest rose in England so far reported. See Annex 1. http://sussexliving.com/rosa - homere/

There are nationally important Fungi and Flora in the Churchyard of St Mark’s Church. Please refer to the recent study conducted by St Mark’s Church, the Church Warden has a copy and is currently developing a management plan for the churchyard with the expert consultant. In addition also see report published November 2013 on fungi surveying in the Middle Sussex and South East Surrey Wealds… churchyards, commons, greens and ex-common, meadow, pasture and sports grounds by Dave Bangs, (with help from Jane Erin) published on Tandridge News. Link shown below. http://www.tandridgenews.org.uk/February%202014%20edition/CHEGsurvey2013.pdf

Staplefield Common archaic grassland fungi survey – ASPC Agenda Monday 10th February 2014 – A&SPC Clerk has a copy of this report.

There is only mention of the Listed buildings around Upper Common – what about the many others in the village?

• Jolly Tanners, • St. Marks Church, • St. Marks School, • Barnhall Cottages, • Little Ashfold, • Chiffley Grange, • Dillions, • Tyes Place etc http://list.historicengland.org.uk/

You have missed off Brantridge School http://brantridge - school.co.uk/ Staplefield village hall supports a large number of community groups ranging from

Village Lunches to the Womens Group, children’s parties, Pilates and also holds adult education classes including Upholstery classes and the committee room is regularly used for meetings for these clubs, associations, societies and even the Parish Council to show some of the range of things this is used for. The village hall was also recently used as a base (gold command centre) for a joint practice exercise held by the fire service, ambulance service and police service due to its excellent facilities and ideal location.

Cricket facilities in Staplefield are maintained by the A&SPC. The Staplefield pavilion was donated in 1950 by the Mrs. Messel (Owner of Nymans,

Handcross) who gave the pavilion in memory of her brother Roy Sambourne. The pavilion was made from two wartime Observer Huts from Nymans Garden by Stephen Knight, the Handcross builders, and roofed by thatchers from the Fens. http://www.slaughamarchives.org/picture/number389.asp

Page 39 of 99


There are a large number of businesses in Staplefield some of which operate from the

many converted farm buildings on the B2114 (Handcross road, Cuckfield Road and Holmstead Hill) and also in Staplefield Lane, Slaugham Lane and Brantridge Lane. The wide ranging nature covers most aspects of commercial and business forms and includes construction fitness Gym, consultancies, Recruitment agents, tree surgeons and many others too numerous to list.

Staplefield has weekly visits from a number of mobile shops to service local needs, these have adverts in Common Interests the local parish newsletter and Staplefield Notice Boards and elsewhere in the village.

Staplefield has internet shopping and so even though it has no physical shops the needs can be met via the internet and delivery services.

Staplefield benefits from a mobile delivery service from the Ouse Valley Practice Pharmacy in Handcross for those less able to go to the practice.

There are also a large number of home workers who live and work in the village. Staplefield has a very strong community and many active associations.

Page 40 of 99


Staplefield is due to have a reduced speed limit to 30mph making it a safer and even more attractive village to visit and live in.

Tourism many events have been detailed through this response but have not yet been included within this scoping study.

77. Tourism: Ansty and Staplefield Parish has many tourism attractions and facilities including: • St Mark’s Church and its Kempe Wall Painting and stained Glass windows.

http://haywardsheath.inuklocal.co.uk/news/staplefield - wall - paintings • The Homere Rose at St Mark’s Church • Numerous London to Brighton runs including the “old crocks Run” veteran car run and

the vintage commercial vehicle run etc. http://www.vccofgb.co.uk/lontobri/ • The Tour of Britain went through many of our villages and there are many other cycle

clubs that use our parish and Staplefield is the key staging point for example the Surrey Cycling Racing League and the East Grinstead Cycling Club to mention just two of them. http://www.surreyleague.co.uk/courses/staplefields.htm http://www.egcc.net/course.php?intVenueID=9

• The Staplefield Fete/Fun Day has been run every year since the 1920’s. http://www.staplefieldvillage.co.uk/StaplefieldFunDay.html

• Staplefield Vintage Car show http://www.staplefieldcarshow.co.uk/ • Visitors to Staplefield often watch the village cricket whilst enjoying a quintessential

village green with choice of pubs. http://staplefield.ecbpc1.com/home/home.asp • Caravan park in Ansty • Equestrian events at Borde Hill http://www.bordehillhorsetrials.com/ • Borde Hill Gardens, House http://www.bordehill.co.uk/ Jeremy’s Restaurant

http://www.jeremysrestaurant.co.uk/ B&Bs /campsites throughout the parish.

• The Stop Line WW2 Pill boxes are found throughout Staplefield and Slaugham. • Fungi & flora in villages including camomile in cricket pitch in Staplefield &

internationally significant fungi in St Mark’s Churchyard • Nymans gardens & millennium Walks http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/nymans/ • Ouse valley way walk http://www.walkandcycle.co.uk/sussex/trail?

trailcode=SUSSTR0100

78. Paragraph 2.33 Page 13 Local Plan policy: The Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004 “Policy AN1 (Ansty Recreation Ground) which is of direct relevance to Ansty has not been carried over by MSDC.”

Who owns this land? Who pays for the maintenance of this land? What is the implication of MSDC not carrying this policy over? At the meeting in Staplefield Village Hall on the 05/09/15 I was informed by the

Clerk that the extension to the Rec as detailed in AN1 is the result of an arrangement between the Social Club and a private landowner. The Village Centre is going to become a charitable trust with many trustees, will this arrangement be impacted?

Page 41 of 99


79. Paragraph 2.34 Page 13 What are the” other saved polices which will be relevant to the Neighbourhood Plan,” the current wording is too vague and required definition.

80. Paragraph 2.35 Page 13 & 14 From the June 2015 Pre-Submission Draft District Plan:

DP4 (Village and Neighbourhood Centre Development) – - What is proposed for each village centre?

DP5 (Housing) –

- The identified need is not going to be met by the small number of new dwellings allocated within the plan.

- Only the needs of Ansty’s residents has been partially met by this plan, the needs of Staplefield and Brook Street have been ignored.

DP6 (Settlement Hierarchy) - The draft Neighbourhood plan has not reflected this is any way, if NPEX were to

look at it this would identify many of the services and facilities within each village.

DP10 (Protection and Enhancement of Countryside) - How will this be delivered?

DP11: (Preventing Coalescence)

- Why is there no map showing where the threat of coalescence is within the parish, it does not impact Staplefield but does Ansty and Brook Street.

- It is worthy of note that Cuckfield’s Neighbourhood Plan has already been challenged and may have imposed significant extra development that the plan had ruled out. Protected areas may now be built upon and the residents of Cuckfield have little say in the matter.

DP12 (Sustainable Rural Development and the Rural Economy) - Where has this been covered in this draft plan?

DP14 (High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty)

- Has the AONB management team been consulted? - Have they been asked to help prepare the plan or asked for advice? - The High Weald AONB Management Plan does not say no development, it

resists major development.

DP18 (Securing Infrastructure) - Where is the Civil Infrastructure plan for the parish of Ansty and Staplefield? - How will the projects within the plan be prioritised? - How will moneys from CIL and S106 be allocated? - There is more than cricket in this parish.

Page 42 of 99


DP20 (Rights of Way and other Recreation Routes) - Where is the map/register or list of these within the parish? - What are the plans to maintain or improve these within the life of the plan?

DP22 (Leisure and Cultural Facilities and Activities)

- Where is the map/register or list of these within the parish? - What are the plans to maintain or improve these within the life of the plan?

DP23 (Community Facilities and Local Services)


DP32 (Listed Buildings and Other Buildings of Merit)


81. Paragraph 2.34 Page 13 Vision and Objectives, Challenges for Ansty & Staplefield “In summary these challenges are:

• The lack of smaller housing units for local residents to address the needs of both the ageing population and first-time buyers.

• The lack of affordable housing for parish residents. • Pressure for development in countryside and the need to maintain and

enhance the high quality natural environment, wildlife networks and biodiversity of the parish.

• The need to maintain distinctive village identities despite the expansion on the north side of Burgess Hill.

o Where are these village identities detailed within the plan? • Problems with traffic volume and speed relating to the expansion of

Burgess Hill. Ansty is likely to be most affected. • Infrastructure improvements are needed including Ansty Village Centre,

Staplefield Pavilion and children’s’ play areas in order to maintain thriving communities.

Please can you provide a definition of “local residents”? Even in the AiRS survey a 3 market for every affordable housing unit need was established. Has the MSDC housing register been questioned to ensure that forecast numbers are in line

with those on the housing register naming the individual villages as their first choice place to live? The MSDC Housing Register is a more accurate picture of need than a survey that canvassed a desire.

Page 43 of 99


The AiRS survey did not cover the full length of this plan it covered just a snap shot in 2012

prior to changes in MSDC policy changes with regards to the Housing Register, so what happens now?

How has the conclusion that there is a lack of smaller housing units been established? Have the ageing population been asked if they wish to move into smaller housing unit? This

does not take into account the changes to inheritance taxation or the changes to pension legislation.

How many first time buyers are forecast for the length of this plan? Will all first time buyers want a small housing unit? – I didn’t Has there been any provision for market rate (non-affordable) units for first time buyers or

any others who may wish to live in these houses? My daughter will come of age during this plan and yet she is doomed to live in either an affordable house (which I don’t think she will qualify for) or small house in a far-away village or move out of the parish to Burgess Hill. How has her and the other children in the villages needs been catered for the life of this plan? How can she remain in the community she has grown up in?

How will Staplefield and Brook Street’s needs be met – do we have to put names on a list and wait for a property to become vacant or can we plan for the population increase that ONS and MSDC have forecast in a more sustainable manner?

Page 44 of 99

Will those who have a connection with Staplefield or Brook Street be forced to live in Burgess Hill or other settlements that they do not have a local connection to?

What are the forecasts of old people moving from their current homes into smaller housing units?

What about the identified needs for families? They may wish for larger housing units since they have a larger household number.

What about those with disabilities – these have not been covered? This plan covers no elements to “maintain and enhance the high quality natural

environment, wildlife networks and biodiversity of the parish” the “say no to all change” approach cannot lead to enhancements, at best maintenance at worst slow decline can be achieved.

The expansion of Haywards Heath and Cuckfield have been ignored when looking at – “maintain distinctive village identities”

“Problems with traffic volume and speed relating to the expansion of Burgess Hill. Ansty is likely to be most affected.” Yet the Ansty Village Centre is forecast to add significantly to car journeys and traffic into and out of Ansty from those in Burgess Hill etc. This will be further exacerbated with the lack of facilities provided in Burgess Hill.

“Infrastructure improvements are needed including Ansty Village Centre, Staplefield Pavilion and children’s’ play areas in order to maintain thriving communities” o How has this list been consulted upon? o How will projects be prioritised? o The Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council Civil Infrastructure Plan (CIP) has many more projects and Cricket is not the only thing for the villages.

o How will this be consulted upon? o The Play area in Ansty is maintained by MSDC so I hope we are not taking that over at extra cost to the parish.

o What about the projects listed for Staplefield’s St Mark’s School, St Mark’s Church, Staplefield Village Hall etc.? These are all vital infrastructure and are all used to a much greater extent than the Staplefield Pavilion.

o If you look back at Staplefield you may find that the pavilion is actually a community asset and so of great importance, it was after all donated to the village by the Messel family and I would like to make it an asset of community value.

82. Paragraph 3.2 Page 15 Vision for Ansty and Staplefield:

‘In 2031 the villages of Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street will remain distinct communities from the larger nearby towns and villages such as Burgess Hill and Cuckfield, having seen no significant expansion of their settlements into the surrounding countryside.”

This has already failed the sites chosen expand the settlement of Ansty in to the surrounding countryside through the expansion of the Built up area boundary.

83. Paragraph 3.2 Page 15 Vision for Ansty and Staplefield: Ansty will have accommodated new housing to help meet the demand and need for new and affordable homes by using land within or close to the established settlement boundary.

Why only Ansty? Where will those who live in Staplefield or Brook Street be served? “using land within or close to the established settlement boundary.” If land close to

but not within is used then expansion will happen in the countryside and so the vision will not be met.

Page 45 of 99

84. Paragraph 3.2 Page 15 Vision for Ansty and Staplefield:

A mix of housing ensures that smaller houses are available for young families as well as older people wanting to downsize.

Not all older people want to downsize how has it been checked what they may want over the life of this plan – with the relatively new pension release rules they may be cash rich & seeking bigger houses & inheritance rules also are more favourable for assets to be held in a property and not cashed in.

Do all young families need to have smaller houses? What is the definition of young families? What is planned for when these young families get older over the length of the

plan?

85. Paragraph 3.2 Page 15 Vision for Ansty and Staplefield: The heritage and landscape assets of the area will have been protected, including the Staplefield Conservation Area and the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB).

Staplefield Conservation Area has yet to be characterised, so what is being protected?

Have the High Weald AONB management team been involved in the development of the plan?

Have the High Weald AONB management team been asked what should be protected and how this could be achieved?

How has the High Weald AONB Management Plan been reflected? It does not say no development in the AONB, but it does say no major development in the AONB. Some development can be done and the result can be an enhanced AONB so to say no before discussing options is rather short sighted.

The High Weald AONB Management team are not listed as consultees.

86. Paragraph 3.2 Page 15 Vision for Ansty and Staplefield: The three small communities continue to thrive and support the community facilities such as the village halls and sport facilities as well as the pubs and other small businesses.

How can the three communities thrive or support community facilities if two of them are not allowed to reflect the community needs of those villages?

There is no mention of St Mark’s school in Staplefield, how is this to be supported and have sufficient children who can walk to school as required to reduce the energy consumption and carbon footprint and to ensure a healthier life style not to mention reducing the traffic loading on the local roads if Staplefield is not able to respond to its and the parish’s needs?

There is no mention of St Mark’s Church in Staplefield how is this to be supported and have sufficient congregation who can walk to church as required to reduce the energy consumption and carbon footprint and to ensure a healthier life style not to mention reducing the traffic loading on the local roads if Staplefield is not able to respond to its and the parish’s needs?

There is no mention of Our Lady Our Lady of Fatima Church in Staplefield how is this to be supported and have sufficient congregation who can walk to church as

Page 46 of 99

required to reduce the energy consumption and carbon footprint and to ensure a healthier life style not to mention reducing the traffic loading on the local roads if Staplefield is not able to respond to its and the parish’s needs?

How are small businesses supported in this plan, I cannot see a mention of what is to be done to help them.

87. Paragraph 3.2 Page 15 Vision for Ansty and Staplefield: All the settlements are better connected to each other and other surrounding villages through cycle routes and improved local bus services.’

What control does the Parish Council or NPEX have over local bus services? Is there a demand for a bus service if we are all wedded to our cars? Why do the villages in the parish want to be connected to each other surely they

want to be connected to those MSDC has identified in Table 5 of the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015?

I would like to better connected to Handcross, Balcombe and Cuckfield who have services we share and to give them better access to the services we have that they don’t.

88. Paragraph 3.3 page 16 -

• “To protect the environment of the Neighbourhood Plan area in terms of its rural identity, landscape setting and local green spaces of importance.” Where are these local green spaces of importance listed?

How were these agreed and ratified? Who was asked to give any suggestions? Can I add any I feel are important? I would like to add the stand of Scots Pines on Handcross Road in Staplefield,

opposite the common that makes up an important feature of the Conservation Street Scene.

• To protect the heritage of the Neighbourhood Plan area, particularly the Staplefield Conservation Area.

What is actually being preserved? Conservation Area does not mean no new houses, just a control as to what and

where.

• To contribute to meeting the local housing need, including affordable housing for those with a local connection to the parish.

How can Staplefield or Brook Street do this if no new homes can be built? Does my daughter have to move out of the village she has grown up in and gone

to school in, when she requires a house of her own? Will the children of Staplefield and Brook Street be condemned to Burgess Hill

housing estates when they have grown up in verdant spacious villages since they will have no local connection to new houses proposed in this draft plan?

• To provide a mix of house types.

Page 47 of 99

What mix is required? What is the Neighbourhood plan proposing? What is being supplied and has been agreed with the strategic developments

that the remaining dwellings are to be built in?

• To minimise the negative impact of traffic and encourage safe walking and cycling. How does this align to the encouraged increase in traffic that the required Ansty

Village Centre will bring? Ansty currently has 6000 car users visit it, how many will this be with the new

village centre? What is actually planned to encourage safe walking and cycling, it is an

admirable objective but how will it translate on to the ground? Why is there no mention of the safer walking to school route in Staplefield? Is

this not the sort of scheme you wish to promulgate?

To support and enhance the community facilities serving the parish. Where is the full list/register of community facilities? Has the MSDC settlement sustainability hierarchy been used to help list these

facilities? Perhaps you should revisit it since many appear to be missing from this plan.

How have those involved in the community facilities been involved in this plan to explain what is required to support these facilities?

What is needed to enhance these facilities? Many of those in Staplefield have not had any mention in this plan even though

I have informed the NPEX of them in previous consultation exercises e.g. the St Mark’s Church, Brantridge School etc.

89. Paragraph 4.1 page 17 - “Being the only settlement of any size within the neighbourhood

plan area, it is expected that the focus of development will be in the settlement of Ansty. The village needs to accommodate a degree of growth in order to prosper”… It is worthy of note that:

• ONS Census 2011 figures as shown in MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Table 1 – Population estimates (Category 1-4 settlements), 2011

• Ansty = 332 people • Staplefield = 401 people

The ONS statistics shown in the table below clearly show Staplefield is the largest village 2011 Census data:

MSDC District A&SPC Ansty Staplefield

ONS Sub AREA Reference:

E00161782 E00161781


139860 1756 332 401

Page 48 of 99


58712 677 133 171

total households with one or more usual resident, 2011 (KS402EW)

57409 641 129 154

How can it be claimed that Ansty is the only settlement of any size?

Why is it only the village of Ansty that is allowed to prosper? Ansty has less services that Staplefield and is totally reliant on the car so how

increasing it is seen to be positive is in conflict with the neighbourhood plan policies: i. AS 1 since all development in Ansty proposed requires the increase of the

Built up Area boundary – none of the proposed sites are currently within this boundary.

ii. The proposed sites have not put forwards plans to deliver the housing mix as per AS 3. On the open mornings when plans were put forwards for public view the Barn Cottage site proposed 10 houses and the Bolney Road site proposed in excess of 40 houses, yet they haven’t been allocated this.

iii. The proposed sites have not put forwards plans to deliver the housing mix as per AS 4. .

iv. The Bolney Road site selected in this plan is not what has been consulted upon during this process. It is half the site. How was this determined to be the chosen option when it was not consulted upon?

v. Why has less than a quarter of the Bolney Road site been selected – at the open mornings this site offered to build the Ansty Village Centre if it was accepted. What has NPEX secured for this much smaller site?

vi. The Bolney Road site was given a SHLAA assessment by MSDC that deemed it to be unsuitable for any development.

vii. What happens if access cannot be secure to the “south-western corner” of the Bolney Road site?

viii. What is meant by “safe pedestrian access into the village is provided where possible..” I am confused will it be safe pedestrian access as per policy AS 14, or will it not? What happens if this cannot be provided?

90. Paragraph 4.3 page 17 “Staplefield, being within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), is not considered to be a suitable location for expansion in light of this designation”

Why has this plan gone above the High Weald AONB Management Plan and claimed that the AONB is not suitable for any expansion? This is not in accord with the High

Page 49 of 99

Weald AONB Management Plan which support small scale developments but resists Large Scale developments, MSDC have assessed many sites in the AONB accordingly. Since over 60% of our district is within the AONB it is necessary that some development is allowed within it, so long as it is controlled appropriately and standards maintained.

There could be acceptable proposals that actually enhance the AONB and therefore accord with the NPPF but these have been excluded before an opportunity for consideration.

Where are the comments from the High Weald AONB Management team? Have they visited the sites?

What advice did they offer?

The High Weald AONB Management Team are not listed as consultees within this plan.

91. Paragraph 4.3 page 17 “ … the potential of alternative sites for development that are located outside the AONB.” How is the potential of alternative sites that are not in the same village balanced against the need and desires of residents of Staplefield. This statement ensure the needs of a community can never be supported within it even if suitable development schemes were produced that actually enhance the AONB.

92. Paragraph 4.4 page 17 “The Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004 defines a BUAB for Ansty. Policy C1 of the Local Plan protects the adjoining countryside from unnecessary development.

This defined boundary is going to be changed by the proposed developments in Ansty and by those that have already secured planning permission references: and so this policy C1 is not being met or even considered within Ansty.

How has the decision to change Ansty’s BUAB been made. When one looks at the second questionnaire results:

If one looks at the response to the second questionnaire as shown below for questions 11, 14 and 16 that asked about the built up are boundaries for each village you will note :

Q11, Q14 , Q16 Staplefield Brook Street Ansty Agree 74 55 78 Not Sure 60 64 48 Disagree 81 83 72 Not Stated 7 20 24 Total responses 222 222 222 Agree + Not Sure 134 119 126

Page 50 of 99

• Ansty gained 78 votes (35.1%) that clearly agreed to extend the current BUAB to enable more development in Ansty, yet 74 votes (33.3%) agreed that Staplefield should have a BUAB defined. This is a difference of 4 votes, neither scored a clear 50% of the votes on Agree alone.

• “Not sure” is not “Disagree”, if people were opposed they would have marked “Disagree”. “ Not sure” should be followed with further dialogue to enable conclusive results to be produced. When one looks at Agree + not sure for Staplefield this reaches 60.3% of the votes by securing 134 votes yet Ansty only just gains 56.8% with 126 votes. With these figures highlighted how has it been determined that Ansty will expand its BUAB but Staplefield will not have a BUAB defined?

• Staplefield is prevented from meeting its own needs if this decision is not reviewed in light of the points raised above and a BUAB considered rather than being prevented even though 60.3% of the respondents agree to it being defined.

• It is probable that voters were “not sure” since no options were provided for consideration and they were being asked to leap into the unknown hence the lack of surety. Yet Ansty has a clearly defined BUAB and voters could clearly see the ramifications of extending the BUAB and where this extensions was proposed to remap the village of Ansty.

• The scale of the maps used for Ansty, Brook Street and Staplefield were different, voters for could see where the Ansty sites fitted into the wider village, yet voters for Staplefield could not since most of the village was not visible and the sites in Brook Street were shown to align closer to Haywards Heath than the rest of Brook Street. This variance in depiction is leading. The sites put forwards were not all on the same level playing field.

• The scale of the Staplefield map implies that this village (the largest of the three in the parish if one refers to ONS stats) is a hamlet which is not correct.

93. Paragraph 4.4 page 17 “(e) proposals for facilities which are essential to meet the needs of

local communities, and which cannot be accommodated satisfactorily within the built-up areas;”

How are the needs of Staplefield or Brook Street going to be met?

94. Paragraph 4.5 page 17 “The emerging Mid Sussex District Plan has an equivalent policy

(Policy DP10: Protection and Enhancement of Countryside) which states that BUABs can be reviewed by neighbourhood plans. With the proposed site allocations (Policies AS5-AS8) it is appropriate to alter the BUAB for Ansty to reflect these development sites.”

There was no clear consensus from question 16 that Ansty’s BUAB should be changed as shown in comments and table above.

Although the Deaks Lane site is not covered by this plan but it has been approved and the current BUAB has been changed with no reference to the existing BUAB as shown in the MSDC Local Plan 2004 where the BUAB’s are currently defined. How can the BUAB be changed before this plan comes into effect?

95. Paragraph 4.6 to 4.9 page 19 Why has the gap between Ansty and Burgess Hill been

recognised as important but the gap between Ansty and Cuckfield is not mentioned?

96. Paragraph 4.10 page 20 … “The plan recognises the need to retain this and, where possible, to enhance the environment of the village.”

Page 51 of 99

You need to parish after Ansty and Staplefield, otherwise Brook Street is once again left out.

Which village will be enhanced both Staplefield & Brook Street are within the AONB?

How will this enhancing be done? Is this in line with the High Weald AONB Management Plan?

97. Paragraph 4.12 page 20 “The NPPF affords a significant level of protection to land with

AONB status. Paragraph 14 – one of the key paragraphs in the NPPF – states that the ‘presumption in favour of sustainable development means that Local Plans should meet objectively assessed needs unless specific policies in the Framework indicate development should be restricted. It then makes reference to AONB as one such example of a restrictive policy.”

Although this a restrictive policy it is not a policy that prevents suitable sustainable development that accords with the NPPF.

To say no to all development even sustainable development that is sensitive to its location is in conflict with the NPPF.

The AONB management plan sets out that only major development should be refused unless it cannot be located in any other location.

98. Paragraph 4.13 page 20 “Policy DP14 of the Mid Sussex Emerging Local Plan reinforces this for the High Weald AONB. It states that development within the area will only be permitted where it conserves or enhances natural beauty and has regard to the High Weald AONB Management Plan.”

This policy is clear and says that where development conserves or enhances the natural beauty and has regard to the High Weald AONB Management Plan it may be acceptable.

99. Paragraph 4.14 page 20 How have the community of Ansty and Staplefield “expressed a desire to provide

further policy support for these principles of protection in the Neighbourhood Plan”? Where is this desire recorded? Why is the National Planning Framework not considered sufficient to enable

decision to be judged appropriately?

100. Paragraph 5.2 page 21 “Given the growing proportion of smaller households in Ansty and Staplefield – led by the growth of those of retirement age in particular - there is a potential mismatch between the supply of properties (which are large) and the needs of households (which are for smaller properties).”

How many of those already living in Ansty and Staplefield Parish that have reached retirement age wish to downsize?

How was this need established? AiRS did not ask about downsizing from a larger to small property but did ask about required modifications.

Is this plan saying that those in market housing have to match their perceived needs to their chosen house size – i.e. you are old so can have a small house?

Page 52 of 99

Why do those of retirement age wish to move, they often have more time to garden and enjoy their property and community when they stop working?

Many people have gardeners and other help to stay in their homes rather than move to a small house not in their community, it is often less expensive and stressful than moving and the person is able to remain in their home and community.

How can older people stay in the communities of Staplefield or Brook Street if no new housing is allowed given your policies?

Retired people are often called to help look after Grandchildren and so still require the space they have in their family home. This support network is valued and seen as a good thing for the Economy by central government since it often enables those of working age to do so.

101. Paragraph 5.3 page 21 “It is expected therefore that the demand for smaller properties – particularly by those currently living in large family properties in Ansty and Staplefield now looking to downsize since children have grown up and moved out – will be significant.” Is this fact or a guess?

With the changes to pension rules, inheritance tax etc many older people will wish to remain in their house and see it as the best investment for their children so I disagree about the mass exodus of old people that is “expected”.

If this expected exodus is to happen – when will it be and how large? If this exodus is expected why are there so few houses for sale in the village of

Staplefield or the wider parish? Will this mass sale of family homes reduce house prices? – if so affordability will

increase. Retired people are often called to help look after Grandchildren and so still require

the space they have in their family home. If you ask any local estate agent the biggest demand is for family homes in the

villages within this parish.

102. Paragraph 5.3 page 21 In the Neighbourhood Plan survey, nearly 50% of respondents live in a household totalling two people, despite the high proportion of large properties.

Has it been considered that maybe we can afford to do this and actually want to live in a house with the space provided by a “large property”

Can you define what a “Large property” is please? My wife grew up in a 7 bedroom farm house and so considers 4 bedroom to be small.

Has it been considered with the high percentage of home workers/people working from home that this space is seen as a need since the property has to also accommodate work space and facilities?

103. Paragraph 5.5 page 21-22 “The SHMA does recommend that, when seeking to establish broad requirements for different types and sizes of new market housing, this should take account of existing pressures and market signals of shortage. Evidence of property prices summarised in Section 2 showed that the high prices and the lack of smaller properties mean that buying a property is almost certainly out of the reach of almost all first-time buyers.” What market signals have been established?

Page 53 of 99

Why are only first-time buyers of importance since these will form the smallest sector of the housing need?

What is the percentage forecast for first time buyers over the length of this plan? Will the demand from first time buyers be consistent through the plan? How have market signals been determined during the development of this plan? Earlier in the plan you had identified the parish to be popular with families so the

first time buyers will have to be moving on fairly promptly! Aspiration is not a bad thing, I for example would like to have a larger house with an

orangery yet you do not plan to meet my “needs”. With the changes to the rules re buying Housing Association Housing in addition to

the right to buy Council Housing there will be more a wider choice of lower cost units available – fact.

104. Paragraph 5.6 page 22 “This is supported by the Ansty and Staplefield Housing Needs Survey, undertaken in 2012 by Action in Rural Sussex. This identified 26 households in need of an affordable property in the parish, with 18 of these households either being single person households or a couple without children.”

Post publication of these results I contact MSDC Housing Enabling Manager to ascertain the breakdown of this reported need. She responded on 3rd August 2012:

“I have checked with the Parish Council ref your query regarding where the households live who are in housing need from the survey findings. The details are as follows Ansty 8 households Brook Street 3 households Staplefield 5 households Other 5 households The remaining households who were identified as being in need did not provide an address.” I then asked on 07.08.2012: “Is it possible to find out what type of housing is required for each village i.e. one bed, two bed - single or two storey etc? And also the timescales for these needs and the age profile of those needing them? Is this information also available for the private housing need?” She replied on 14.08.2012: “I'm sorry for the delay getting back to you. I hoped to get some more detailed information about the survey findings in relation to the affordable housing need but my colleague from AirS has not responded and may be on holiday. On the Housing register we currently have 17 households with a local connection to the parish. 7 to Staplefield and 10 to Ansty. The household need ranges from 1 beds to 4 beds and includes some older people. We tend to avoid developing new affordable housing with specific households in mind because the development process takes such a long time that peoples housing circumstances may have changed by the point that a scheme is delivered so we will usually try to meet a range of needs according to the specifics of the site. Private housing is developed for the open housing market and there is no specific needs data that would assist that I am aware of that provides information at a parish level.”

Page 54 of 99

I asked on 12.03.2013: “I am writing to ask if it would be possible to have up to date information on the number on the housing register who have expressed a first preference for Staplefield and if possible the wider Parish of Ansty and Staplefield as well. The reason I am writing to request this data is the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan is slowly moving forwards and the committee are now asking for more information from the land owners. As you know from previous correspondence I am keen to include an element of affordable housing in any development at my site but will require hard data to prove the need and to get the numbers correct.” To which the Housing Development Officer - Housing Enabling Team replied on 25.03.2013:

“Apologies for the delay in getting this information to you. The 1st choice preference for Ansty and Staplefield is 4 households, 2 households each for Ansty and Staplefield.” I then asked on 15.05.2014: “I am writing to request the up to date information regarding housing register numbers who have expressed a first preference for Staplefield and the wider Parish of Ansty and Staplefield as well broken down as before. The reason I am writing to request this data is the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan is still very slowly moving forwards and as a result of new Guidance from the government Mid Sussex District Council is updating the Housing Supply Document (also known as the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SHLAA)) published in 2013. I require this information to establish if I need to modify any of my submissions within the SHLAA process. The closing date for this is the 6th of June 2014 so time is of the essence and I need this information prior to this date As you know from previous correspondence I am keen to include an element of affordable housing in any development at my site but will require hard data to demonstrate the need.” MSDC officers responded on 20.05.2014: “We are currently reviewing our housing register so the numbers on the housing register have gone down significantly within the past month and the process will continue to approximately the end of June. The figures below are therefore a snapshot from today 2 households have listed Staplefield as their first preference 1 household has listed Ansty as their first preference If a site comes forward as an open market site it is our policy to require 30% affordable housing. While priority is given during allocations to those with a local connection to where the development is, the units on these sites are also to meet wider housing need across the district.” This correspondence clearly shows that the demand for affordable housing has decreased since the AiRS survey with only 3 first preferences being recorded by MSDC as of 20 th May 2014.

What is the registered need now and in which villages do these people need to live?

Do these registered people have a qualifying local connection to the villages?

Page 55 of 99

It is curious that although the AiRS survey only had a need of 16 from this parish, 5 not this parish and 5 who could not be followed up having provided no address, yet this plan has presented this number as 26 – who are the unknown people & where do they come from? How are the 5 not from the Parish being treated within this analysis – do they have a local connection? How are the unknown 5 being treated within this analysis – you cannot know if have a local connection since they provided no details? This reduces the need to a maximum of 21 if all 5 not from this parish have a local connection to it and do not live in the areas that will be serviced by the strategic developments.

Has this number in need been washed against the MSDC Housing register to ensure that the need is known by the housing suppliers?

Has this number been reviewed since 2012, some people in need may have moved to a new community by now and this need may be less.

What about the needs of the communities that will require market housing in the life of this plan?

Have the “18 households that are either single or a couple without children” been checked to ensure that the couples did not separately register their need thereby causing the need to be artificially inflated?

105. Paragraph 5.7 page 22 “Policy DP28 of the Mid Sussex Emerging Local Plan states that housing development will provide a mix of dwelling types and sizes that reflects the current and future local housing needs.”

How have future housing needs been established? What trending has been done? What life expectancy ranges were used? How have all types of housing been considered?

106. Paragraph 5.8 page 22 “The evidence above, combined with the evidence from the local

community, collectively demonstrates that the need for a greater number of smaller dwellings at an affordable price is required for first-time buyers and older residents wishing to downsize in Ansty and Staplefield. Indeed, the provision of a larger supply of smaller units will help to reduce the price and make entry-level housing more affordable in Ansty and Staplefield. This is reflected in Policy AS4.”

Where are the houses on the market within the parish for all of these people downsizing?

What is the economic formulae to establish the point when the “larger supply of smaller units will help to reduce the price”?

i. How many extra smaller units are required to reduce the price sufficiently to make them more affordable?

ii. What is the impact of an increase in population and increase in life expectancy on the local house prices?

iii. What other factors have been calculated e.g. the impact of pay increase, the creation of more skilled jobs forecast by MSDC in the planned science park close by etc?

Page 56 of 99

It is very brave of this plan to claim to be able to alter the housing market and prices in this parish when even the Bank of England struggles.

107. Policy AS4 page 22 “In the early part of the plan period, the housing evidence requires a particular emphasis on the provision of 1- and 2-bed dwellings. It is therefore expected that in the early part of the plan period the majority of new dwellings on individual developments shall be a balanced mix of 1- and 2-bed dwellings.” Where is this housing evidence shown?

Who collected and analysed this housing evidence? How has market opinion been sought? Is this what the housing associations require? How can the range of needs be met with a mix of 1-2 bed dwellings? What is a “balanced mix of 1- and 2-bed dwellings”? How many “1- and 2-bed dwellings” are required? Are there any other requirements that have been evidenced e.g. adaption for the

ageing population that have previously been forecast to have a huge desire to move from a family home to the 1- and 2-bed dwellings that this plan will offer?

Bedrooms alone do not meet a need.

108. Paragraph 6.3 page 23 “Mid Sussex District Council has worked with the Ansty and Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Group to establish what an appropriate level of growth is for the neighbourhood plan area.”

Where are the agendas, minutes and notes from these meetings?

109. Paragraph 6.3 page 23 “A significant consideration is the proximity of the neighbourhood plan area to Burgess Hill and in particular the proposed strategic development to the north and north-west of the town. This will address a significant proportion of the housing needs of Ansty and Staplefield over the plan period.”

Those in Staplefield and Brook Street cannot sustainably get to the strategic developments so how will their needs to remain in their current communities be met?

Do those who live in the parish wish to move to Burgess Hill as suggested? Ansty is the closest to these strategic developments and so why are the needs of

their residents being met yet no the other villages? Has a portion of the “excluded area of the strategic development to the north and

north-west of Burgess Hill” been allocated to meet the needs of the parish that are not to be addressed by this plan?

Has MSDC agreed that this portion of the Strategic Development may be used to cover the need not met within this plan?

Will Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street Residents be classified as having a local connection to this parish or to Burgess Hill? I ask since this classification will impact their opportunities to gain housing in the strategic development.

Have the needs not met within this plan and cast into the Burgess Hill Plan area been accommodated, acknowledged and agreed?

110. Paragraph 6.4 page 23 “Coupled with this is the limited potential of the settlements in the neighbourhood plan area to sustainably accommodate growth. The level of service

Page 57 of 99

provision in the three centres of Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street is limited. This will inevitably restrict the levels of growth that can sustainably be brought forward”

The level of service provision is more limited in some villages as shown below: Service provided Ansty Brook Street Staplefield Community Hall/ Centre

X

Convenience store X Dispensary x X Health Centre/Doctors facility

x X

Library x X Petrol Station X x Place of Worship x X (two) Public House x X (two) School (Infants) x X School (Primary) x X Play area (all types) X Playing pitches (all types)

X

Sports Pavilion/ Changing facilities

X


x X

Source Mid Sussex District Council Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 and Mid Sussex District Council SETTLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW ADDENDUM 22 JULY 2015 Table 6 Settlement Services The table above shows that there is one village that is considerably more sustainable that the other two, yet it has been decided that these services will not be supported by this plan, this is not in accord with the NPPF.

MSDC settlement Sustainability hierarchy is mentioned within the references yet little detail appears to have been taken from it.

Paragraphs 3.13 to 3.15 of the SETTLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW

“Limited Local Service Centres The role of Limited Local Service Centres is more restricted than that of Local Service Centres and caters for more basic and localised needs.

Page 58 of 99

The relationship between settlements within the 5km distance threshold to share services is acknowledged. The classification of a Limited Local Service Centre allows a maximum of two key services to be shared.”

Paragraph 3.15:

To qualify as a Limited Local Service Centre, a settlement must have or share a maximum of two of the following:

One or more retail uses which must include a convenience store; An infant/ primary school; A village hall/ community centre Public House

Following these criteria, the settlements identified as Limited Local Service Centres within Mid Sussex are:

• Ansty: (shared services) benefits from a garage forecourt shop and a village hall but does not have a school or a public house. However, both are available at Cuckfield, within the 5km threshold.

• Staplefield: meets all the criteria.

Both Ansty and Staplefield are classified as Category 4 Settlements by MSDC: “The settlements within this category have been identified as having very few services and facilities, often only serving the settlement itself. Settlements within this category are:

• Ansty – Ansty is classified as a Limited Local Service Centre on account of sharing services with nearby settlements but it has restricted public transport access. The High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty skirts the village boundary to the north and west and there are pockets of Ancient Woodland, although these only adjoin the built up area boundary to a limited degree on the eastern boundary.

• Staplefield – Staplefield is classified as a Limited Local Service Centre but does not have a built up area boundary and is wholly within the High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty”

Staplefield would be a Category 3 settlement if it had a built-up area boundary since it meets all the other criteria defined as required by Category 3 Settlements.

There is no evidence of the position of Staplefield Built up Area Boundary status having ever been reviewed by Mid Sussex District Council since its decision to not define one for Staplefield which is not documented or recorded by the District Council (MSDC have been unable to provide any details of the original decision or any subsequent review of this decision). This position has accordingly not been reviewed for at least 34 years, despite a lack of BUAB MSDC acknowledge that Staplefield is a thriving and

Page 59 of 99

vibrant village, perhaps its other services such as a post office would not have been lost has the position been reviewed before it was too late.

111. Paragraph 6.5 page 23 “In light of this, the proportion of the objectively assessed

housing need for Ansty and Staplefield parish that is required to be accommodate within the Neighbourhood Plan area over the plan period 2014-2031 is much lower than the theoretical need figure of 132 dwellings.”

The theoretical need is actually an objectively assessed need according to MSDC & it remains at 132 dwellings – it is just you have chosen to not supply sufficient houses to meet this objectively assessed need.

112. Paragraph 6.5 page 23 “Since the start of the plan period, 15 dwellings have been granted planning permission. It is therefore considered that these dwellings in the planning pipeline, along with the site allocations identified in Policies AS5 and AS6 (which are proposed to accommodate approximately 26 dwellings) and a small number of windfalls that will inevitably come forward within the villages, is sufficient to address the needs of the community and the wider needs in the Mid Sussex Emerging District Plan.”

Where are these 15 dwellings to be located? What type of houses are they – small or large? How does this fit with the need you have established earlier in this plan?

113. Paragraph 6.7 page 23 “In addressing the needs of Ansty and Staplefield today, there

are already sites in the planning pipeline which will serve to provide new homes for the community as well as placing additional demands on the infrastructure of the neighbourhood plan area. However, in order to recognise the growing needs of the community over the whole plan period, it is important to plan for further growth, provided it meets the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan.”

Neither Staplefield or Brook Street have had their needs considered or addressed within this plan.

How has future growth been planned for? – how much will it be & where will it be put?

Chapter 6 Page 23-25 Residential Site Allocations:

How has it been derived from the consultation to date that the sites chosen in AS5 and AS6 are the most suitable when the site in AS6 is not that was put forwards for the consultation exercise, the site shown throughout the consultation has been a site of 2.27 hectares yet the site chosen is only 0.52 hectares – how has this been concluded? What correspondence has there been with the developers or land owners? Has this been offered to all sites? Is the land owner/developer in agreement with this reduced proposal? Have West Sussex County Council been involved with regards to the access issues? Why has this site been reduced when the larger number would have built the Village Centre and this was clear in all of their proposals?

It is impossible to see how the differing questions for ranking of sites in Ansty versus a

Page 60 of 99

Agree/disagree/ Not stated/ Not sure question was posed for sites in Staplefield and Brook Street can be reconciled to show which have the most support. This is shown in the table below which uses the data produced from Questions 12, 13, 15 and 17 of the questionnaire:

Page 61 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 1st

Preferenc e

2nd Preferenc e

3rd Preferenc e

4th Preferenc e

5th Preferenc e

Aggregate d Preference

Averag e over 5 choices

No opinion

64 66 73 84 96 383 76.6

Barn Cottage

16 23 21 24 20 104 20.8

Ansty Cross Pub

52 18 18 11 4 103 20.6

Holly Bank 19 15 8 29 14 85 17

Bolney Road

27 15 15 10 10 77 15.4

Ansty Cross Garage

5 32 9 15 13 74 14.8

Challoners

5 6 18 14 21 64 12.8

The Lizard 7 11 23 11 8 60 12 Ansty Farms South

7 18 3 10 6 44 8.8

Ansty Farms North

13 5 13 4 8 43 8.6

West Riddens

4 3 12 6 13 38 7.6

Little Orchards

3 10 9 4 9 35 7

222 222 222 222 222 1110 222 Tanyards Field

52 Only one option of agree was given for these three sites

Cuckfield Road

69

Sugworth Farm

55

If one considers the maximum score for any site the ranking is:


Page 62 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 Sugworth Farm (55 votes) = 2nd Choice (site now withdrawn),

Tanyards Field & Ansty Cross Pub (now developed) (52 votes) = Joint 3rd Choice. Bolney Road (27 votes) = 4th Choice






Tanyards Field & Ansty Cross Pub (now developed) (52 votes) = Joint 3rd Choice. Bolney Road (27 votes) = 4th Choice



If one looks at the average score achieved by each site in Ansty Vs the sites in Staplefield and Brook Street, since one can only conclude that any form of ranking is equivalent to an Agree yet one cannot count 5 opportunities to say agree against only one for Staplefield and Brook Street sites hence the use of average for the sites in Ansty, then the ranking is as follows: 1st = Cuckfield Road with 69 votes

2nd = Sugworth farm with 55 votes but this site has now been withdrawn

3rd = Tanyards Field with 52 Votes

4th = Barn Cottage with 20.8 votes

5th = Ansty Cross Pub with 20.6 votes – this site has already been fully developed

6th = Holly Bank with 17 votes

7th = Bolney Road with 15.4 votes

8th = Ansty Cross Garage with 14.8 votes - this site has been withdrawn

9th = Challoners with 12.8 votes

10th = The Lizard with 12 votes

11th = Ansty Farms South with 8.8 votes

12th = Ansty Farms North with 8.6 votes

13th = West Riddens with 7.6 votes

14th = Little Orchards with 7 votes

If this method was not used please can you provide the details of the method used to select sites.

Q12, 13, 15 Tanyards Field Cuckfield Rd Sugworth Farm Agree 52 69 49 Not Sure 67 63 72 Disagree 96 84 80

Page 63 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 Not Stated 7 6 21 Total Responses = 222 222 222 Agree + Not Sure = 119 132 121 “Not sure” is not “Disagree”, if people were opposed they would have marked “Disagree”.

“ Not sure” should be followed with further dialogue to enable conclusive results to be produced. Accordingly what weighting has “Not Sure” been given since the questionnaire gave this option this must have been established prior to the analysis.

When one examines the total of responses received for “Agree” and “Not Sure” the numbers achieved for all three sites exceeds half of the respondents as shown in the table above.

It is worthy of note that only the location maps were provided with the questionnaire, the site proposal as presented on the second visioning day were not provided and although there was reference to the website the questionnaire was paper based to take account of those who have no internet facilities so these people were not able to see this level of detail. The detail of the proposals only viewable through the website may have elicited stronger feelings for or against particular sites.

How have the questionnaire responses been verified to ensure only those that are eligible to respond as shown in question 19 of the questionnaire have been used to inform the analysis and subsequent conclusions? i.e. how have non-parish residents and those not on the electoral roll been discounted from analysis. This is particularly pertinent since a large group of people from the Sugworth/Penland Farm Action Group (Haywards Heath residents close to these proposed site) were given a large number of blank questionnaires.

Why has the analysis been broken into individual village responses – this is a parish plan not an individual settlement plan, there is one resultant plan not three, yet each community has its own needs that need to met in accordance with the aims of this neighbourhood plan and also to satisfy the NPPF requirements.

Page 24 POLICY AS5: LAND AT BARN COTTAGE, ANSTY

Planning permission will be granted for residential development on 0.56 hectares of land at Barn Cottage, Ansty, subject to the following criteria:

“the provision of a range of house types” - yet the current planning application is for all large 4 bedroom houses which is not in line with Policy AS4.

“the tree belt on the eastern boundary of the site is largely retained…” o How much is largely? o What happens if this cannot be largely retained? o What happens if the land owner submits an application for more houses? o What

happens if the land owner submits an application for less houses? o What happens if the land owner submits and application as they have for a different

range or type of housing than is required by policy AS4? The SHLAA assessment for this site assess it to be suitable for 6 dwellings as shown below:

MSDC SHLAA 2015: ID = 626 (AS/06)

Site Reference: 626 (AS/06) Parish AS Ward

Page 64 of 99


Site location Land south of Barn Cottage, Cuckfield Road, Ansty Site use(s): U0131 - Unused Land Gross site area 0.56 hectares Net developable area (ha): 0.27 Proposed site density (dph): 1 Lower- 30 Deliverable (1-5 years) 0 Dwellings Developable (6-10 years) 6 Dwellings Developable (11 years +) 0 Dwellings Not Currently developable Overall Conclusion

This site benefits from very few physical or environmental constraints. An existing access onto Cuckfield Road should provide suitable vehicular servicing and the ground is flat and level. Neighbouring amenity should be preserved. Views to and from the wider landscape of this well enclosed site are minimal. The site is adjacent to the centre of the village and so is in one of the most sustainable parts of Ansty for pedestrians and would not extend the village boundary further into the countryside in a linear fashion. The owner has expressed an interest in making this site available for development in the longer term, although the site is considered deliverable in the medium term subject to the necessary mitigation and allocation in a Neighbourhood Plan (because the site is outside of the settlement boundary).

What value land is the “agricultural field”? Who considered the site to be “suitable to accommodate approximately 8 dwellings” when

MSDC considered it suitable for only 6 dwellings? How was this suitability assessed and how was this conclusion for 8 dwellings reached? What sources of information were used to make this decision?

Page 25 POLICY AS6: LAND OFF BOLNEY ROAD, ANSTY

“Planning permission will be granted for residential development on 0.52 hectares of land off Bolney Road, Ansty, subject to the following criteria:

• the provision of a range of house types and in accordance with Policy AS4 of this Plan; and

• the tree belt surrounding the site is, where possible, retained and further enhanced with native species; and

• access is provided from the south-western corner of the site in order to overcome the change in levels, with visibility maximised; and

• safe pedestrian access into the village is provided where possible; and sufficient surface water drainage capacity is provided”.

…”

This is not the site that was consulted upon – this was an area of 2.27 ha, not the 0.52 ha shown here – how has this decision been reached?

Is the landowner in agreement with this decision? What will the parish get as a result of the diminished area? This is important since the original

proposal included building the Village Centre if it were chosen – a very generous offer and this may have been a large reason for people voting for this site.

Page 65 of 99


What happens if no “safe path” is provided? What happens is drainage issues cannot be removed? This looks like it is a potentially show

stopping issue since it is a known flood risk so against all polices for MSDC, NPPF and this plan. The SHLAA assessment for this site assess it to be not suitable for any dwellings as shown below,

yet the NPEX have chosen this site: MSDC SHLAA 2015:

Site Reference: 629 (AS/09) Parish AS Ward Site location Land at Bolney Road, Ansty Site use(s): U011 - Agriculture U022 - Un-Managed

Forest

Gross site area 2.27 hectares Net developable area (ha): Proposed site density (dph): Deliverable (1-5 years) 0 Dwellings Developable (6-10 years) 0 Dwellings Developable (11 years +) 0 Dwellings Not Currently developable Overall Conclusion

This site is considered to be unsuitable for development due to its unmitigated visual prominence in the landscape and significantly higher level than the properties across the Bolney Road. Development here would fundamentally change the character and appearance of Ansty village as approached north along the A272 and from the public footpath to the southern boundary. In addition, access arrangements are unlikely to be economically or physically viable and so this site is unlikely to be delivered.

How was the decision made to choose this site that MSDC assessed to be not suitable for any

development? Is the site now accessible? Does WSCC still own the access to the site (a ransom strip)? Where is the site selection methodology shown for this process? What data is used to make site selections in the neighbourhood plan? How can this site be considered the most suitable when “There could potentially be issues in

respect of the capacity of the drainage system running along the A272…”. MSDC policy and the NPPF with regards to flood risk. Both the NPPF and MSDC do not allow development if the site is a flood risk.

How was the decision reached that this site was “considered to be suitable to accommodate approximately 18 dwellings.”?

How was the number 18 dwellings reached? Is this a high density proposal? If so is this in keeping with Ansty? What number is approximately 18 dwellings? Will more be OK? This is a major development, have MSDC considered it suitable for such development? The site was put forwards and subsequently consulted upon for a much larger area and a much

larger number of dwellings as can be shown on the relevant part of the parish council website: http://www.anstystaplefield - pc.gov.uk/Core/Ansty - and - Staplefield - Parish Council/UserFiles/ Files/Bolney%20Road%20A4%20Boards.pdf . How is it considered acceptable to consult on one development proposal and then choose a variation?

Page 66 of 99


No Neighbourhood planning meetings (NPEX) have occurred since July 2014 as shown on the parish council website http://www.anstystaplefield - pc.gov.uk/Core/Ansty - and Staplefield - Parish - Council/Pages/Meetings_Agendas__and__Minutes_1.aspx .

As detailed in the presentation made by the developers for this site - What “ … significant investment into the local community facilities such as the funding of improvements to the village hall as a result of development…” will result from this altered proposal?

Was this promise of “significant investment into the local community facilities such as the funding of improvements to the village hall as a result of development” a deciding factor for this site to be chosen even though MSDC consider it to be not suitable for development?

Chapter 7 pages 26-27 makes no mention of many sporting and Leisure facilities in the parish including: the Golf Couse at Sparks Farm, the Rugby and football pitches in our parish opposite Spark’s Farm, the Internationally renowned Borde Hill three day event facilities are just a few of the missing items.

• Why has no mention been made of the Staplefield Common which is the most prominent and visible green space in our parish in chapter 7?

Paragraph 7.1 to 7.5 pages 26 – 27 Local Green Spaces –

Why is only Ansty covered in this section?

How have “Local Green Spaces” been designated through this plan? Can the area with the Scots Pines in Staplefield be designated as Local Green

Space? These have been highlighted to be of importance to the village and form significant character featured of the Conservation Street Scene. In every form of consultation to date the protection of this area and these trees has been requested and this request accords with Paragraph 77 of the NPPF which says that Local Green Spaces should only be designated:

• “where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; • where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular

local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and

• where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land.”

Why is the Ansty’s Village Hall and Sports and Social Club included in this section since it

is a building? Who owns Ansty Recreation Ground? Who owns the adjoining field leased by Ansty Sports and Social Club? What are the terms of the lease? What happens when the lease expires? Is this leased land considered to be “Brown Field” when the lease expires? What happens to the site the current village hall is on? That will be a brown field site

when the village hall is demolished. When will the new charitable organisation take over the management of this whole site

in Ansty? Which other villages in the parish use this facility in Ansty? Who is the main users of this facility Ansty and Staplefield Parish or Burgess Hill and

Haywards Heath residents?

Page 67 of 99


POLICY AS7 facilitates this local green space in Ansty “for built development so long as the …proposal is of a limited scale and nature, can be clearly demonstrated that it is ancillary and enhances the role and function of the Village Centre and Recreation Ground”. How does this align to the other aims of this policy since you are looking to protect this space yet openly encourage limited development on it?

o What sort of development is acceptable on this Open Green Space? o How much development is acceptable? o What is considered small scale?

o How can this space be protected if any development with the exception of the proposed Village Centre is to be allowed?

I am concerned that this policy does not protect this valued asset sufficiently from development.

Paragraph 7.6 page 27 “…Staplefield has the Pavilion”

Why has the pavilion been selected out of the range of community facilities in Staplefield? These are listed in earlier sections of this response.

What about the other community facilities not listed, how have they been considered and why are they not listed? These have been detailed extensively through this document and in previous consultation responses I have submitted.

I do not consider the pavilion in Staplefield to be at its heart – how was this statement reached? I consider the common to be the heart of the village and the pavilion is located on it.

Paragraph 7.7 page 27 “People make over 6,000 individual visits annually to Ansty to participate in sporting and other recreational activities”

These 6,000 visits (is this 6,000 people or 6,000 cars full of people?)are predominantly made by a car since Ansty has only a very limited public transport service.

Traffic is a very severe issue for Ansty as detailed in the Neighbourhood Plan, what is planned to:

o Reduce the demand/reliance on the car yet still service the proposed village centre? o How many more journeys will there be as a result of the proposed Village Centre and

proposed expanded sporting facilities? o How many more visitors will come when the Northern Arc is built? o Given this sizeable

expansion and forecast increase in visitors will the car parking be sufficient? Will the road to the village centre cope or will it require expansion? o If traffic increases who will pay for the traffic calming measures (as detailed in chapter 11 of this plan) – Burgess Hill or Ansty and Staplefield Parish. If our parish has to cover these costs there will be no monies left for the Village centre or other community projects. The development will have happened to fund traffic calming for those who are not even living in our parish.

o Will Burgess Hill or Haywards Heath Neighbourhood plans provide funds to help build the proposed Village Centre since their residents will use it?

Paragraph 7.9 page 27 “ The same principle applies to the Pavilion in Staplefield which will need upgrading and improving at some stage during the plan period.” o Maintenance is currently to be done via the arrangements with the cricket clubs, so is upgrading or just maintenance required?

o This upgrade has not been discussed at Parish Council or discussed at the residents association AGM this year.

Page 68 of 99


o How will the community projects in the Ansty and Staplefield parish Civil Infrastructure Plan be prioritised? The priority has not been discussed or agreed.

Page 28 POLICY AS8: IMPROVEMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES

“Proposals that would result in the improved provision of community facilities will be strongly supported. In the case of the Village Centre in Ansty and the Pavilion in Staplefield, this is particularly the case for proposals that would re-provide and improve such facilities on the existing site.” How was the Pavilion selected as a priority? The pavilion is used for a few months of the

year, primarily on weekends only when cricket is played mostly by people who do not live in the parish, yet other facilities are used all year around and have more of the community use them and they are not even listed.

What other community projects have been discussed or agreed Paragraph 7.13 Page 28 Since “…The Mid Sussex Playing Pitch Strategy 2015-2031 identifies Ansty Recreation Ground as a potential site for an additional cricket pitch1.”

Do we need this additional policy? If we have this additional pitch our parish total will rise to four cricket pitches

There will be five cricket pitches and two cricket clubs – Ansty and Cuckfield within half a mile of each other. Where is the evidence for such a large demand?

Do we have sufficient cricket players in the parish to play on them all? What happens if MSDC do not choose Ansty for this extra pitch? Is this “additional cricket pitch” in addition to the two cricket pitches there are already in

Ansty and the one in Staplefield? How has this huge demand within our parish for cricket been established? Who will maintain these pitches? Who pays for this maintenance? Can matches not be scheduled to use the existing pitches more efficiently to remove the

costly need for more? Some Ansty matches used to be played at Staplefield for example, or have matches at different times over a weekend not all in the afternoon.

Paragraph 8.1 – 8.3 page 29

Although Staplefield was designated a Conservation Area in 1984 it is still awaiting a Conservation character assessment from MSDC

Policy DP33 of the Mid Sussex Emerging Local Plan does not provides guidance on particular matters such as landscaping and pavements. Landscaping is not mentioned in any form in this policy.

In the NPPF Chapter 12 this has more detail but it does not say that development should be prevented, it should be controlled to enhance the Conservation Area and its character preserved.

How did “the community of Ansty and Staplefield has expressed a desire to provide further policy support for these principles of protection in the Neighbourhood Plan.”? Where is this evidence shown?

Chapter 9 page 30 Broadband infrastructure

“…over 10% of people work from home”

Page 69 of 99


Actually the figures from the 2011 census are shown in MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 in Table 2

Ansty 27.4% work mainly at home Staplefield 28.9% work mainly at home The District mean is 18.1% that work mainly at home These true percentages are considerably higher than “over 10%”. If these sorts of statistics which are collected by the Census are not correct we will not make a strong case for superfast broadband.

The two schools in Staplefield also require superfast broad band to enable the students to keep pace with the modern world.

• Paragraph 10.1 page 31 “There are very few dedicated commercial units within the Neighbourhood Plan area that provide employment”.

Why has only Sparks Lane site been shown when there are also units in:

Stanbridge Park Industrial Estate, Staplefield Lane, Staplefield has six units in Victoria House and motor mechanics businesses.

The Courtyard, Holmstead Farm, Staplefield has five offices Holmstead Farm, Staplefield also has Hayward Farming and Contracting,

Close Brothers, Suchnoon Ltd, Beadell’s Tree surgeons, and also an planning application is currently being decided on a large on a large agricultural service centre and a parts distribution facility.

The Forge Industrial Estate, Cuckfield Road, Staplefield has the following: Mairon Freight, GMIFC, Richard Allitt Associates, F.H.Dixon Construction, Staplefield Livery Yard.

St Mark’s School, Staplefield Brantridge School, Staplefield The Victory Pub and restaurant, Staplefield The Jolly Tanners Pub and restaurant, Staplefield Hill House dairy farm, Staplefield New Barns Gym and Spa, Staplefield Washlands Stud, Staplefield The Wings Museum, Staplefield Solus FS ltd, High Beeches Lane The Wealth Works, High Beeches Lane Alchemy Mill, High Beeches Lane, High Beeches Gardens and tea room and shop Mudmania, Home Farm, Staplefield Sparks Farm shop, Cuckfield Golf Centre Cuckfield Garden Machinery Paternosters Farm, Slough Green Lane has fruit, pick your own and other

industrial units

Page 70 of 99


Seed Services in Ansty, Beacon Fencing in Ansty Borde Hill Gardens with the Little Ritz Vintage Tea Café, Jeremy’s

Restaurant and shops

• Paragraph 10.1 page 31 Why have homeworkers been missed? This parish has

a very high percentage of home workers who all live and work in the parish. • What about those who work in the two schools? This is quite a significant

employer for Staplefield as is Nymans Gardens and the two public houses also have restaurants.

Chapter 11 page 32 “The community of Ansty and Staplefield considers it very important that contributions from development are used to address traffic management matters within the Neighbourhood Plan area, linked to the strategic development at north-west Burgess Hill. The use of such contributions, including those collected through the Community Infrastructure Levy, for traffic management schemes will be welcomed.”

What money will be left for community projects after these traffic management schemes have been paid for from the CIL collected?

Will all CIL money end up on traffic calming measures that have come about from a development ruled out of our neighbourhood plan area?

Will the parish end up having development to pay for traffic calming measures caused by our neighbouring plan areas?

Paragraphs 11.4 – 11.7 pages 32 and 33

Why has the Sustrans National Cycle Route 20 that passes through Staplefield not been included in this chapter?

It should be noted that in table 3 of the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 that:

• 9.1% of Staplefield residents already walk to work • 7.2% of Ansty residents already walk to work • 7.9% of Mid Sussex District residents already walk to work.

This shows that Staplefield is leading the way in sustainable transport. The children living in Staplefield and that attend St Mark’s School are encouraged to walk

to school. Staplefield has a safer walk to school route – why has this not been mentioned? St Marks School regularly run cycle proficiency skill courses to encourage safe cycling. Sussex Police visited St Mark’s School and gave the children reflective arm bands to

ensure they are seen when it is dark and are encouraged to walk where possible. General questions on the plan and its maintenance:

1. How will this neighbourhood plan be reviewed when the Mid Sussex District Plan is amended? 2. What will trigger a review of this neighbourhood plan? 3. Where is locality defined? 4. The CIL is defined but this is not in place – what fills this gap?

Page 71 of 99


Where is it detailed what percentage of the CIL the parish will receive from any developments?

What plans are there to make up the shortfall whilst the CIL is not in place? The SHLAA is detailed in the glossary how has it’s output and the associated MSDC

assessments for the parish been used in developing this plan? General comments:

A real shame the villages are so pretty yet the photos are so poor – why have the pubs in Staplefield not been given a chance to shine or the churches or a picture or cricket being played rather than roads & wires or fences! Staplefield even has an archive that you could have raided or residents could have supplied photos if they had been asked. Thank you for this opportunity to be involved in the Neighbourhood Plan Process for our Parish. If any of my points are not clear please do not hesitate to contact me and I will explain them. I am alarmed at the lack of detail provided for Staplefield, even though this is included in MSDC documentation you have referred to, I trust this situation will be rectified.

Please can I have a response to my points raised above and assurance that any points I have highlighted to be factually incorrect in this plan or its supporting documentation are corrected as part of this exercise.

4. Elliott Fielding (resident and joint owner of Tanyards Field, Staplefield). Comments on the Sustainability Appraisal.As advised by the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council Website the Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood

Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 consultation period ends on 8th Septemebr2015 at midnight, please find my comments as requested addressed to the parish clerk for consideration in the on-going work for the Neighbourhood Plan. I am aware and content that all comments received will be publicly available and may be included on the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council website. Paragraph 2.1 page 3

1. Who formed the “Steering Committee comprising members of Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council and volunteers from the community”?.

2. Who formed the “..three working groups”

3. Where are the interests of both the steering committee and working groups listed?

4. What dispensation were granted for these sets of people?

5. Where are the outputs from these groups?

6. Who checked the output from these groups to ensure it had no bias and was correct and complete?

Page 72 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 Paragraph 2.2 page 4

1. “The majority of the district-wide data had already been collected for the Sustainability Appraisal for the Mid Sussex District Plan” why has this data not been used where available? An example of a data source not reflected is the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 and its addendum

2. How was the vision drafted when the methodology has yet to be detailed and so the findings from this work have yet to be agreed? “Ansty will have accommodated new housing to help meet the demand and need for new and affordable homes by using land within or close to the established settlement boundary. A mix of housing ensures that smaller houses are available for young families as well as older people wanting to downsize.”

3. How was it determined in the vision that “Ansty will have accommodated new housing to help meet the demand and need for new and affordable homes”? A vision does not include this sort of articulation as to how the vision will be delivered. This after all is a parish plan not the plan for Ansty alone.

4. This first paragraph “In 2031 the villages of Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street will remain distinct communities…having seen no significant expansion of their settlement into the surrounding countryside” this allows some development in each of the three villages yet

in the next paragraph this is limited to only Ansty.

5. How has it been established that older people want or need to downsize? The changes to both inheritance tax and pensions make it more advantageous to remain in a more valuable property to enable more to be passed on to their children.

6. Has it been considered that the older people may wish to remain in their current communities? i.e. those living in Staplefield may not wish to move to Ansty or the Northern Arc since all their friends and support networks will not move with them?

7. Has it been considered that the older people may wish to adapt their current homes at a lesser cost than that derived from moving – the cost of estate agent fees and legal fees are large and this would pay for may adaptions if required.

8. What is going to be protected in the Staplefield Conservation Area since this has yet to have a character appraisal conducted on it by MSDC and they have no plans to do so in the near future. No details of what constitutes the character of this conservation area has been provided with any of the neighbourhood plan documentation.

9. How can “The three small communities continue to thrive and support the community facilities such as the village halls and sport facilities as well as the pubs and other small businesses.” When all development is to be done in Ansty, yet this village only supports two services and Staplefield has many more and many thriving businesses many of which are detailed below: Stanbridge Park Industrial Estate, Staplefield Lane, Staplefield has six units in Victoria House

and motor mechanics businesses. The Courtyard, Holmstead Farm, Staplefield has five offices Holmstead Farm, Staplefield also has Hayward Farming and Contracting, Close Brothers,

Suchnoon Ltd, Beadell’s Tree surgeons, and also an planning application is currently being decided on a large on a large agricultural service centre and a parts distribution facility.

Page 73 of 99


The Forge Industrial Estate, Cuckfield Road, Staplefield has the following: Mairon Freight, GMIFC, Richard Allitt Associates, F.H.Dixon Construction, Staplefield Livery Yard.

St Mark’s School, Staplefield Brantridge School, Staplefield The Victory Pub and restaurant, Staplefield The Jolly Tanners Pub and restaurant, Staplefield Hill House dairy farm, Staplefield New Barns Gym and Spa, Staplefield Washlands Stud, Staplefield The Wings Museum, Staplefield Solus FS ltd, High Beeches Lane The Wealth Works, High Beeches Lane Alchemy Mill, High Beeches Lane, High Beeches Gardens and tea room and shop Mudmania, Home Farm, Staplefield Sparks Farm shop, Cuckfield Golf Centre Cuckfield Garden Machinery Paternosters Farm, Slough Green Lane has fruit, pick your own and other industrial units

Seed Services in Ansty, Beacon Fencing in Ansty Borde Hill Gardens with the Little Ritz Vintage Tea Café, Jeremy’s Restaurant and shops

10. “All the settlements are better connected to each other and other surrounding villages through cycle routes and improved local bus services.” Are the authors aware that Staplefield is on Sustrans National Cycle Route 20 as detailed in DP20 of the MSDC District Plan 2014-2031 , has an additional service of the Handcross Community Bus which runs on several routes many times a week e.g. to both Horsham and Burgess Hill?

Paragraph 2.4 page 4 “indicators used to measure”

have these all been set out in Appendix B?

a. Are there targets set for each indicator so that you know when success is achieved?

b. Are the targets SMART i.e. have a baseline and you know how they will be measured?

Paragraph 4.4 Page 8 “Staplefield is located approximately 3 miles to the northwest of Cuckfield on the B2114 Handcross Road”

This may be correct but how far is it from Handcross? Handcross is less than 1 mile from Staplefield and provides as many services to the village as Cuckfield does if not more. Handcross has a Health Centre including doctors, pharmacy, NHS dentist and provides a large number of other facilities including small scale surgery, midwifery and other clinics.

Page 74 of 99


Handcross also has a post office, convenience store, butcher, baker, a wide range of shops including a hardware store, agricultural merchant, hair dressers, beautician etc. There is also a petanque club, pre-school facilities and many other facilities and a wide range of sporting facilities. Reference should have been made to the MSC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 and its addendums which provide considerable detail.

Paragraph 4.8 page 8 “The geology of the parish largely comprises weald clay and sand” this should be sandstone outcrops, we do not have many sand pits other than for children’s play in this parish.

Paragraph 4.9 page 8 “There are 83 Grade 11 listed buildings in the parish.”

• This may be correct but where is the map showing where these are? I ask because are any located close to any proposed development sites?

• The Assets of Community Value seem to have been missed out of any form of documentation – this needs to be corrected. They include the two pubs in Staplefield and other assets as determined appropriate by Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council who gave them this status.

Paragraph 4.11 page 8 This has not detailed any of the following heritage the village of Staplefield had as detailed below:

• St. Marks Church Staplefield has two separate listings.

St Mark’s Church also has fine Kemp wall paintings which the village of Staplefield and Kempe Society have recently restored. These works date from 1869 and are regarded as especially important, representing the earliest of three known examples of Kempe’s wall painting. They contain key elements of Kempe’s figurative work. http://haywardsheath.inuklocal.co.uk/news/staplefield - wall - paintings

St Mark’s Church in Staplefield possesses seven Kempe windows including some of his very earliest window designs.

The Homere Rose at St Mark’s Church Planted in 1862 this is in the Guiness Book of Plant Records – The oldest rose in England so far reported. http://sussexliving.com/rosa homere/

The many other listed buildings in Staplefield include: Jolly Tanners, St. Marks Church, St. Marks School, Barnhall Cottages, Little Ashfold, Chiffley Grange, Dillions, Tyes Place etc http://www.english - heritage.org.uk/professional/protection/process/national - heritage list - for - england/

You are aware there are 83 Grade 11 listed buildings – why have they not been shown on a map.

I think you will find that the landscapes at Nymans, Borde Hill and High Beeches are also listed – these fall within this parish.

The position of no built up area boundary around Staplefield does mean that the Countryside Areas of Development Restraint policies will be applied but there is no reference that if this Page 75 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 position changes then these policies will not apply. The current wording assumes there will be no change over the life of this plan.

Paragraph 4.15 page 9 how has it been concluded that “the elderly and those that live alone, who do not enjoy the same level of prosperity or access to the services”? If you refer to table 6 of the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 and its addendum you will note that Staplefield does not suffer from this described lack of access to services. In addition there is a St Mark’s

Church has a Pastoral Scheme specifically for elderly people in the parish of St Mark’s and St

Mary’s which service Staplefield village. Details can be found on the following link .http://www.stmarysparish.org.uk/more - mature/ . There is also a large number of thriving community groups in Staplefield e.g. Village Lunches and other events as shown by the Staplefield website http://www.staplefieldvillage.co.uk/index.html and advertised locally in the phone box and on notice boards with details posted in the Common Interests magazine the Staplefield Village and Parish magazine that is produced monthly this details the Rosemary Club in Handcross which is a local Friendship club that is open to everyone.

Paragraph 4.16 page 9

• Why has the National Average been used when the District averages are available in MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015?

a. ONS Census 2011 figures as shown in MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Table 1 – Population estimates (Category 1-4 settlements), 2011

• Ansty = 332 people • Staplefield = 401 people • The ONS statistics shown in the table below clearly show Staplefield is the

largest village.

Page 76 of 99


2011 Census data: MSDC District A&SPC Ansty Staplefield

ONS Sub AREA Reference: E00161782 E00161781

Usual Resident Population, 2011 (KS101EW) 139860 1756 332 401

Total built dwellings (buildings/single address) , 2011 (KS401EW) 58712 677 133 171

total households with one or more usual

resident, 2011 (KS402EW) 57409 641 129 154

Paragraph 4.17 and 4.18 page 9 Roads and transport

If you refer to the table and details below it may add some positive details for example the percentage of people in Staplefield who walk to work is well in excess of the district.

Parish/ Method

Train Bus/Mini bus/ Coach

Taxi Car/ van driver

Car / van pass’gr

M’trcycle Bicycle On Foot

Ansty 12.4% 0.7% 0.7% 56.0% 2.9% 0.7% 1.0% 7.2% Staplefi eld

11.6% 0.5% 0.0% 58.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.5% 9.1%

District Mean

11.0% 1.4% 0.3% 62.4% 3.6% 0.9% 1.1% 7.9%

“Rural” mean

10.6% 1.3% 0.3% 63% 3.6% 0.9% 1.0% 7.2%

Table 3-Main Method used to travel to work, 2011 from MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Source: Census 2011 Please note these figures exclude working at home date, and those that state ‘other’ as a method of travelling to work. It is worthy of note that a considerable percentage of the population of both Ansty and Staplefield work from Home as detailed in the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Table 2 – Distance travelled to work - Source: Census 2011. To summarize Staplefield has 28.9% mainly work from home

Page 77 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 and Ansty has 27.4% mainly work for home, the District mean is 18.1%. This shows this parish has a significant percentage of residents who mainly work from home.

Paragraph 4.2 page 10 – Staplefield

• “Although no longer containing any shops, the village is a thriving community with two churches, a village hall, a primary school, two public houses, a children’s play area and a large common with a cricket pitch and pavilion.” This is not correct if you refer to the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 Table 6 – Settlement Services and this report’s addendum you will see that Staplefield has a shop and also many more services.

Paragraph 4.23 Page 10 – Parish

• Why is the school not listed in the village of Staplefield but is for the Parish? This school is attended by people from Staplefield, Ansty, Cuckfield, Slaugham, Handcross, Pease Pottage, Crawley, Balcombe and other surrounding villages and towns. I have advised you of this fact in my previous consultation responses.

Table 5.1 page 11

• The weakness that in Weaknesses there is “Only one small shop in garage at Ansty” is incorrect - This is not correct if you refer to the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review you will see that Staplefield has a shop.

• The weakness that in Weaknesses there are “no health facilities” is not correct if you refer to the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review you will see that Staplefield has health facilities.

• The Strength that there are Pubs and other businesses should be noted that the two pubs within the parish plan area are both in Staplefield – the one outside Ansty should not be counted since it is not within this plan area.

• The Strength that there are “Village Clubs” is correct but you have failed to list any that exist in Staplefield.

• I do not consider the “high cost of housing” to be a threat, this is due to the affluent area we are living in and the high wages earned.

• The threat of “loss of Biodiversity” will only be a threat if planning applications are not scrutinized to be in accord with the High Weald AONB Management Plan.

• As detailed in my previous response to the Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report October 2014 Page 9 Section 5.11 – SWOT Assessment

I would like to reiterate: Strengths

Page 78 of 99


- Brantridge school – special needs Has been missed. - History and heritage have not been noted as a strength, yet the parish has these in

abundance.

Opportunities - The opportunity to provide more family homes if there is a proven need has been

missed. - The opportunity to provide infrastructure for the whole parish has been missed.

Weakness

- How has the Weakness of “Lack of Smaller Houses” been reached – what is the need and how has this been profiled? Is it only smaller houses that are being sought? Where has this data come from?

- “Lack of smaller homes…” How many is the Parish requiring? I ask because there are many 2 bed properties in Staplefield eg Staplefield Court conversion has 14 and there are numerous others in Staplefield and the other villages.

- “Only one small shop in garage at Ansty” The garage/shop has been proposed for development with in the ASBNP neighbourhood plan process & is within the Built up area boundary. This is a weakness and is subject to great threat since it has yet to be listed as an asset of community value.

- “One pub recently closed in Ansty” This has been demolished so why has this been included?

Threats

- The threat of possible waste/large business or retail park near parish boundary should be seen as an opportunity since both will give employment opportunities within a close proximity to the parish.

- Surely the real prospect of losing the garage/shop in Ansty should be listed here.

Page 12 Table 5.2: Challenges and impacts of not having a neighbourhood plan

As detailed in my previous response to the Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report October 2014 Page 10 – section6 Key sustainability Issues, which I am raising again since none were addressed as a result of the previous consultation exercise:

Has the lack of family housing not been raised in the surveys? If you ask local Estate Agents this Parish is highly sought after with a bigger demand than supply for all types of housing but especially family homes. This plan has to span over 10 years and so what forecasting of needs and demographic changes has been done?

A large number of the family homes in all three villages and surrounding countryside are currently occupied by retired couples who have been lucky enough to raise their families and still be in a position to live in family homes in their retirement. Not all old people or young families need or want to live in small houses.

Page 79 of 99


If parishioners children wish to have a family house in the parish do they have to put her name

down on a list & hope that one becomes available – there is no option if they are not seeking either a small or low cost unit.

There is no allowance for those who have no local connection to move into the Parish – so how do we enable the villages to remain vibrant? Many of the families that now have children at St Mark’s School recently moved to the area (not necessarily just within our parish) as family homes have become available. If a local connection had been required they would not have had an opportunity to do so. Families also seek suitable housing solutions and there has mainly been 2 bed conversions in Staplefield and in the rural area surrounding the villages. The last new house not a conversion or replacement, in Staplefield was back in the 1960’s. Would a continuation of this approach enable the village of Staplefield to remain vibrant, viable and sustainable? Given the Districts’ Strategic Objectives and the likely expansion of Gatwick Airport the demand for housing within the Parish will only increase. More people from outside of our parish/county will be looking to this parish and ones like it due to the excellent location, proximity to the airport yet lack of airport noise and flight paths overhead, excellent schools and the wide choice to suit all needs, exceptional quality of life and superb transport links and they will want to live here. This increased need for additional housing does not even include those relocating from urban areas (London etc) and commuting as required. Many will seek village life rather than the Northern Arc. This need should be identified and catered for as detailed within NPPF guidance and the MSDC district plan.

Where can the definition of Local Connection be found?

The infrastructure improvements do not refer to the agreed and published Civil Infrastructure Plan, many other items have been identified and one would expect there to be community involvement in the prioritisation of the funding of projects across the parish and not for all the money to be held to meet just one village’s desires. It might take years to raise/save up such a large sum for one project when many smaller projects could be delivered to yield a greater benefit to the whole community.

I have more points with regards to Table 5.2 page 12 of this Sustainabiity Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft final report July 2015 as shown below:

• Why has only small housing units been raised as a challenge when family housing has been raised in every element of this plan to date.

• Why is only affordable housing a challenge – market housing is in high demand too.

Page 80 of 99


• Only Ansty’s village identity will be impacted by the growth of Burgess Hill. I would suggest the loss of Ansty Cross Pub and its development will have had a bigger impact to the village than the future development at Burgess Hill will do.

• How have the infrastructure improvement been decided – this has not been discussed or agreed in any Parish Council meetings. Why is the agreed Infrastructure Plan not included to enable residents to view the full set of ideas?

Page 81 of 99


• The effect of the lack of a Neighbourhood Plan on the funding of infrastructure requirements is imminent since all of the proposed development is likely to be built before any CIL is collected. What happens then?

Chapter 6 paragraph 6.1 page 13

• Where are “the results of the residents and business surveys and engagement events conducted throughout 2013 and 2014” I cannot find them on the website. How many were conducted, what questions were asked and who was asked since you do not seem to have a clue of what businesses there actually are in the parish.

Chapter 7 table 7.1 page 14

• How can the SWOT analysis “help address the ‘weaknesses’” if it is not correct or complete?

• How have comments on the SWOT analysis not been addressed?

• How was the SWOT analysis completed? Who informed the detail?

• As detailed in my previous response to the Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report October 2014 Page 11 Section 7 –

Sustainability Objectives how have my comments been addressed in the draft final report, I cannot see any changes in the text in the draft final plan dated July 2015?:

“Page 10 section 7 Sustainability Objectives – paragraph 2 – - Why and how have the chosen objectives and indicators been selected to measure ASBNP sustainability?

Objective 1/Soc: What is the desired outcome/target number? What is the need that ASBNP needs to meet? Objective 2/Soc: These are largely not in the control of the Parish, with footpaths, cycle paths and bridleways being the responsibility of the County Council and Public Transport the responsibility of private industry. It does not feel correct to measure success when the activities required are not in the gift of this plan. Is ASBNP trying to punch above its weight? How can expectations be managed with indicators like these? Objective 3/Soc: What about Churches and places of worship?

Page 82 of 99


Also this section is lacking reference to the NPPF which supports provision of services for other local communities i.e Staplefield for Handcross & Slaugham and vice versa, the NPPF recognises that rural villages and communities will need each other to make services viable and so not all sustainable villages will have its own full suite of services.

Page 11 and 12 Objective 4/Env: The AONB is not decided by the Parish but Nationally so it is a false indicator. Also Built up area boundaries enable controlled building whilst still protecting the AONB. What is the settlement pattern of villages? What does it show and what are ASBNP trying to achieve – bigger/smaller or the same? Number of listed buidings – what is being sought more/less or the same? Are different listings given different weightings with Grade 1 beating Grade 2 etc? Again this is not in the control of ASBNP so what is actually being measured & why? The MSDC Conservation Officer is going to do what for the indicator there are yet to be up to date Character assessments from MSDC for each village – having only so far published 5 out of the 36 Conservation areas in the District? What is English Heritage going to be asked to do – what is the baseline & what are the targets? Page 12 Objective 5/Env:

- How is the proportion of journeys made by sustainable methods going to be baselined & measured in a viable and economically prudent manner?

- Have car shares been considered or home working or walk to school routes or people coming into the parish to go to school etc?

- How will you classify a journey that starts in a car to a train station? Or a bus and then an airplane?

- Has the benefit of high speed broadband been factored in?

- OR home delivery enabling a planned energy efficient route to be taken making many deliveries on one journey reducing the need for separate journeys?

- What about the mobile shop service – this reduces the need for unpreventable journeys?

Page 12 Objective 6/Env:

- How will proportion of journeys made by sustainable methods be baselined and then measured/reported?

- How will ASBNP influence walking and cycling routes to village centres?

Page 83 of 99


- Where is the village centre for each village?

- What about those not in the village centre or trying to get from one village to another?

- How will the changes to speed limits approved by WSCC impact this proposed measure e.g. Staplefield is to go from a 40mph to a 30mph.

- What is being sought?

- What is the definition of a safe crossing point? - Are more of the same number being sought?

- Is consideration being given to the type and location of safe crossing points or just a number?

- Has consideration been given to accident statistics?

- Are new cycle routes being proposed?

- What about internet shopping, deliveries etc? Page 12 Objective 7/Env

- How is the indicator of – Conservation area in Staplefield preserved going to be base lined and measured?

- Is the aim to enhance the conservation area or is it to stifle evolution and restrict the communities’ ability to meet its needs?

- I do not understand what “- historic settlement pattern of the villages maintained” means, this is a statement and not an indicator.

Page 12 Objective 8/Env

- How can the ASBNP safeguard the geology, landform, water systems and climate? This is an indicator that has little relevance for the Neighbourhood planning process unless an environmental action such as land fill, land reclamation or mining is permitted.

- What is meant by Landform?

- How can the ASBNP impact on water systems? There are strict legislations with regards to both discharge into water courses and also abstraction and the licensing thereof.

- This Parish is not able to create a microclimate and so the quality of the climate is an indicator that will not be resultant of any action within the Neighbourhood Plan.

- The indicator re Settlement pattern and historic farmsteads – have such things been identified and what is the target for these – more/ less/ the same or just to identify?

- Ancient Woodlands and field patterns – what is being desired for these? Can the ASBNP really restrict the changes in field patterns? This could be a restriction on the ability of a farm to change to meet future needs.

- Are footpaths, bridleways, tracks and lanes ancient rights of way or just mapped rights of way? Again what is wanted for these do we want more / less or the

Page 84 of 99


same number? Is quality or distance covered an issue or is the link from one place to another – what is this indicating a number alone tells us nothing.

- Diversity of wildlife – how is this to be baselined? What is the target measure and how will it be economically viable to monitor and report on this indicator?

- Peace and quiet – one could question what is being sought? I want to live in a vibrant village such as Staplefield and this has little road noise yet I would say is a mix of quiet and noisy lively village life, including the laughter of children the crys of joy from a cricket team and the fun of village events. I do not want a target of peace because to me this is a stagnant and dying community.

- Available amenity open space – what is the objective going to show a quantity, quality or actual usage? What is covered by amenity open space?

- When I move onto the indicators such as number of trees with preservation orders in the parish – are more, less or the same number being sought? Is a valued stand of trees of greater importance than a single specimen? Who will be identifying trees of importance to the community? The first visioning day identified the stand of Scotts Pines as an asset the village of Staplefield wished to protect, and has been included in the description of Staplefield by MSDC - can these be added to the Register of Community Assets?

- How will the “condition and accessibility of public footpaths” be baselined and then measured? This is a subjective measure and will be subject to the vagaries of the English weather with more rain resulting in the clay turning to mud. These are also the responsibility of WSCC not the Parish and so it seems inappropriate to use an indicator we do not control. WSCC do upgrade foot paths and bridleways giving them a hard surface which would benefit the community and visitors but I do not know if a NP can request these upgrades.

Page 12 and 13 Objective 9/Env “To retain the character and distinctiveness of villages and small settlements and the gaps between them whilst encouraging some organic growth which addresses deficit dwelling stock (young families, older people) and complements their surroundings.” If ASBNP is able to have an objective this focused on particular need I would ask :

- Why just young families – surely this does not reflect the nature of many families with more multi-generational families within one home. - Not all families or old people are low budget or wanting small properties. Many come from more affluent areas to down size and release equity but in reality buy a larger home than they would have left to fulfil their aspirations. - Has no need been found for single people or commuters wishing to move from London or other areas?

- What about people moving to down size so not wishing for a low budget property just a lesser one than their family home.

- Holiday homes? - Special needs housing that can be adapted? - Self builders needs?

Page 85 of 99


Due to the objective I would like to know what is required for open market housing in each village and what is required house size profile over the plan period? When I move on to the Indicators:

- Historic views preserved – how have these special views been identified and agreed? Does preserved mean no change or is sympathetic development acceptable?

- development within or adjacent to settlement boundaries – Refer to the MSDC Council Agenda 12/11/14 (2. Question from a member of the public – Rule 9) re Neighbourhood plans being required to review built up area boundaries. If these are not reviewed why is Staplefield or Brook Street being included in any of this work other than to waste time and resources. http://mid - sussex.cmis.uk.com/mid - sussex/MeetingsCalendar/tabid/70/ctl/ViewMeetingPublic/mid/397/Meeting/1367/Committee/39/Default.aspx Page 13 Objective 10/Econ When the indicators are reviewed they are incomplete and miss the objective of providing opportunities beyond those already there. The indicator of “number of existing businesses retained” – is the aim for status quo? What happens when people sell up or retire? What about new businesses? What about home workers? Seasonal work opportunities e.g. Paternosters Farm? Apprenticeships and other training schemes? How are part time and job share options shown? Full time education opportunities? The data on local employment may not capture where people actually go to work, large organisations always have an HQ address and this may not show satellite offices that are closer to home. How are part time and job share options shown? These indicators ignore the significant economic prosperity of our retired community, they will also spend locally and are not leaving the area to go to work. Suggested indicator: Development with dedicated internal office on plans. Tourism has not been mentioned in detail in any section of this report – why? Yet tourism is referenced in Appendix A “The NP will need to be in broad compliance with the economic development and tourism policies of the District Plan.” With reference to Mid Sussex Economic Development Strategy 2013 which the ASBNP states “Lists objectives for economic development and states how the Council will assist in meeting these aims”. Ansty and Staplefield Parish has many tourism attractions and facilities including:

Page 86 of 99


- St Mark’s Church and its Kempe Wall Painting and stained Glass windows. http://haywardsheath.inuklocal.co.uk/news/staplefield - wall - paintings

(see annex 2 for details) - The Homere Rose at St Mark’s Church (see annex 1 for details) - Numerous London to Brighton runs including the “old crocks Run” vetran car

run and the vintage commercial vehicle run etc. http://www.vccofgb.co.uk/lontobri/ - The Tour of Britain went through many of our villages and there are many

other cycle clubs that use our parish and Staplefield is the key staging point for example the Surrey Cycling Racing League and the East Grinstead Cycling Club to mention just two of them. http://www.surreyleague.co.uk/courses/staplefields.htm

http://www.egcc.net/course.php?intVenueID=9 - The Staplefield Fete/Fun Day has been run every year since the 1920’s. - Staplefield Vintage Car show - Visitors to watch the village cricket whilst enjoying a quintessential village

green with choice of pubs. http://staplefield.ecbpc1.com/home/home.asp - Caravan park in Ansty - Equestrian events at Borde Hill

http://www.bordehillhorsetrials.com/ - Borde Hill Gardens, House http://www.bordehill.co.uk/ - Jeremy’s Restaurant

http://www.jeremysrestaurant.co.uk/ - B&Bs /campsites throughout the parish. - The Stop Line WW2 Pill boxes are found throughout Staplefield and Slaugham. -

Fungi & flora in villages including camomile in cricket pitch in Staplefield & internationally significant fungi in St Mark’s Churchyard

- Nymans gardens & millennium Walks

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/nymans/ - Ouse valley way walk http://www.walkandcycle.co.uk/sussex/trail?trailcode=SUSSTR0100 “

Chapter 8, paragraph 8.4 Policy AS1, Page 16 – Built up Area Boundaries

The built up area boundary (BUAB) has not been considered for Staplefield. If one looks at the response to the second questionnaire as shown below for questions 11, 14 and 16 that asked about the built up are boundaries for each village you will note : Q11, Q14 , Q16 Staplefield Brook Street Ansty Agree 74 55 78

Page 87 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 Not Sure 60 64 48 Disagree 81 83 72 Not Stated 7 20 24 Total responses 222 222 222 Agree + Not Sure 134 119 126

• Ansty gained 78 votes (35.1%) that clearly agreed to extend the current BUAB to enable more development in Ansty, yet 74 votes (33.3%) agreed that Staplefield should have a BUAB defined. This is a difference of 4 votes, neither scored a clear 50% of the votes on Agree alone.

• “Not sure” is not “Disagree”, if people were opposed they would have marked “Disagree”. “ Not sure” should be followed with further dialogue to enable conclusive results to be produced. When one looks at Agree + not sure for Staplefield this reaches 60.3% of the votes by securing 134 votes yet Ansty only just gains 56.8% with 126 votes. With these figures highlighted how has it been determined that Ansty will expand its BUAB but Staplefield will not have a BUAB defined?

• Staplefield is prevented from meeting its own needs if this decision is not reviewed in light of the points raised above and a BUAB considered rather than being prevented even though 60.3% of the respondents agree to it being defined.

• It is probable that voters were “not sure” since no options were provided for consideration and they were being asked to leap into the unknown hence the lack of surety. Yet Ansty has a clearly defined BUAB and voters could clearly see the ramifications of extending the BUAB and where this extensions was proposed to remap the village of Ansty.

• The scale of the maps used for Ansty, Brook Street and Staplefield were different, voters for could see where the Ansty sites fitted into the wider village, yet voters for Staplefield could not since most of the village was not visible and the sites in Brook Street were shown to align closer to Haywards Heath than the rest of Brook Street. This variance in depiction is leading. The sites put forwards were not all on the same level playing field.

• The scale of the Staplefield map implies that this village (the largest of the three in the parish if one refers to ONS stats) is a hamlet which is not correct.

Chapter 8, paragraph 8.4 Policy AS5 and AS6, Page 18 , shown below due to its complexity to describe comments I have on it and points I require be reviewed an corrected as detailed in my points below:

development Option B: To have no site allocations

Page 88 of 99

Assessment of Neighbourhood Plan policy options Policy AS5 – Land at Barn Cottage, Ansty Policy AS6 – Land off Bolney Road, Ansty Policy Options: Option A: To allocate sustainable sites for residential


Sustainability theme

1/Soc – Housing + - -- + + + + - + 2/Soc - Community - - + - - - - - - 3/Soc – Services 0 - + - - - - - - 4/Env - Landscape + + - + 0 - + - - 5/Env – Climate + - + - - - - - - 6/Env - Transport & Movement - + - 0 - - - 0 + 7/Env - Heritage 0 0 0 0 0 0 - - - 8/Env - Biodiversity 0 - 0 0 - 0 0 0 - 9/Env - Character 0 + - - -- -- -- + + 10/Econ - Commercial - - + - - - - - 0 Preferred Policy

A Option: Summary and conclusion:

The sustainability appraisal of the sites demonstrates that there are sustainable sites available within the Neighbourhood Plan area for allocation. The two sites proposed for allocation do represent sustainable options when considered against alternatives. Whilst other sites could represent sustainable site allocations, engagement with the community made clear that development on such sites would not be well received and was not considered to address the objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan as well as sites AS5 and AS6. In addition, allocation of all of the sites that were assessed as being sustainable would result in over-development of Ansty and Staplefield, putting unsustainable levels of pressure on the local infrastructure and services. Ultimately this would have a detrimental impact over the plan period.

The option of not allocating a site for development was considered but this would not be beneficial to the local needs of the area or contribute to the Mid Sussex housing requirement.

This table is flawed when one refers to the sustainability objectives set out on pages 14 and 15 of this report for the following reasons and the scoring and conclusions corrected require correction:

• How is Tanyards Field negative (– ) for: 1/Soc Housing? All the options presented for this site included Social and affordable housing elements as detailed in both the meeting we had with NPEX on the 3rd November 2012 and within the information we supplied both at the meeting in hard format and electronically post. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria.

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 2/Soc – Community? This site is situated within safe pedestrian access (less than 50m) from the Common which can only be classified as a major green space, many foot paths, in fact one runs next to the site, the site is connected to Nymans, Balcombe, Slaugham and Handcross by footpath and Sustrans National Cycle Route 20 as detailed in DP20 of the MSDC District Plan 2014-2031 runs through this village, many bridle paths are also close by. If you refer to an Ordnance Survey map you will see this level of detail. The bus stop is approximately 100m from this site, the village is services by both commercial services and also the Handcross Community Bus. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++.

Page 89 of 99


• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 3/Soc – Services? This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++. As shown below the site is located within easy walking distances of all of the services within this village as shown below:

Service provided Ansty Brook Street Staplefield Community Hall/ Centre

X

Convenience store X Dispensary x X Health Centre/Doctors facility

x X

Library x X Petrol Station X x Place of Worship x X (two) Public House x X (two) School (Infants) x X School (Primary) x X Play area (all types) X Playing pitches (all types)

X

Sports Pavilion/ Changing facilities

X


x X

Source Mid Sussex District Council Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 and Mid Sussex District Council SETTLEMENT SUSTAINABILITY REVIEW ADDENDUM 22

JULY 2015 Table 6 Settlement Services

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 4/Soc –Landscape? This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria given MSDC’s positive assessment. The site assessment provided by MSDC for this neighbourhood plan process is shown below:

Site Reference: 641 (HC/11) Parish AS Ward

Site location Tanyards Field, Tanyard Lane, Staplefield (Larger option inclusive of Site: 596)

Site use(s)1: U0131 - Unused Land

Gross site area 0.6 hectares

Page 90 of 99


Site Suitable: The site is within the High Weald AONB and adjacent to Staplefield Conservation Area. The wider site has established boundaries and topography that slopes gently southwards, facing away from further views and would have minimal landscape impacts. There is built development beyond the wider site's east, west and southern boundaries. The proposed site is located within a larger field boundary with no immediate defensible boundaries to the west which could put pressure on wider parts of this land holding to be developed. However, the landowner has suggested additional boundary treatment can be provided to avoid this. Development closer to the northern boundary may have greater impact on wider countryside due to the topography of the land. Development of the site would use an existing access onto Tanyard Lane to create a suitable access point. The provision of an additional 6 dwellings would significantly increase the use of the lane. However materially the lane would still be very lightly trafficked. Whilst the Lane is, in places single track with no room for two opposing vehicles to pass, given the likely low trafficked nature the frequency is likely to be low. Further information would be required at a planning application stage to confirm this.

From the conservation perspective, it is possible that a very low level of dispersed residential development could be accommodated within the eastern portion of the proposal site without compromising the character of the conservation area. However, it will be essential that any such development integrates comfortably into the sensitive local context and the following design guidance must be carefully considered: 1) The level of new development must not be such that highway improvements are required to Tanyard Lane, as its present informal character contributes much to the pervasive rural ambience of the conservation area. 2) The locally typical linear pattern of development must be respected and access to new dwellings provided from the existing lane. The formation of suburban features such as cul-de-sacs, crescents and lengthy paved driveways should be entirely avoided. 3) A strong western boundary to the site must be formed so that new development is restricted to a linear pattern and precedent is not set for subsequent ‘backland’ development. The new boundary must be well planted with dense shrubbery and so new buildings do not intrude into countryside views from the northwest. 4) The new level of development must be consistent with the surrounding dispersed, spacious grain, with the new, modestly scaled built form sitting unobtrusively in well planted, spacious settings and remaining barely visible from Tanyard Lane. 5) The character of the Staplefield conservation area derives from diverse phases of development over several centuries and new development which replicates historic styles is counter to the way in which the area has evolved. New

Site Available: The site has been made available for development through the Parish Neighbourhood Plan and the Housing

Site Achievable:

SupplyDevelopment of this site is considered to be Document. acheiveable.

Constraints / Action required:

Further details of existing traffic flows along Tanyard Lane as well as information on existing lane widths would need to be provided as part of any planning application. This information should assist in demonstrating that the lane is lightly trafficked and that there are places for vehicles to pass. Improvements in the form of passing places would be beneficial if possible and in keeping with the character of the Conservation Area. The advice from the Conservation Officer (21/5/13) needs to fully accorded with to ensure that any development on this site accords with Policy B12 of the Local Plan and successfully preserves the character of the conservation area.

Page 91 of 99

Comments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015 Net developable area (ha): 0.6 Proposed site density (dph): Deliverable (1-5 years) 0 Dwellings Developable (6-10 years) 6 Dwellings Developable (11 years +) 0 Dwellings Not Currently developable Overall Conclusion

Site would require allocation through relevant Neighbourhood Plan. The site is relatively enclosed to wider views by the larger sites' established boundaries and topography that slopes gently southwards. Access to this site would use an existing access point. The provision of an additional 6 dwellings would significantly increase the use of the lane. However materially the lane would still be very lightly trafficked. The proposal does though raise the possibility of further opposing vehicle movements along the lane itself, although considering the likely low trafficked nature, the frequency is likely to be low. Further information would be required to demonstrate that this is the case. From the conservation perspective, a dispersed level of carefully designed new development, fully in accordance with the above guidelines, may have the potential to accord with Policy B12 and successfully preserve the character of the Staplefield conservation area. The site is within the High Weald AONB and any major development would need to meet the requirements of the NPPF, paragraph 116.

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 5/Soc – Climate? If you had taken up our numerous offers

of dialogue you would have established that our proposal for all options given on Tanyards Field would have contained both elements of green energy generation and sustainable water usage technology, this was defined within the pack we provided for the meeting with site owners on Saturday 3rd November 2012 which detailed on page 3 “It is proposed that each house will be individually designed to enhance the character of the village. Design and energy efficiency will be paramount and we will work closely with MSDC and Ansty and Staplefield Parish to ensure that the highest standards are achieved….” . All of the options ranging from just 2 houses to 6 would have reduced the parish’s impact on climate change. If you refer to the Mid Sussex Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 table 2 you would see that a large percentage of 28.9% work from home, this has to be the most sustainable since no travel is required, and Table 3 shows a higher than district average travel to work on foot. The primary school is on x m by foot and other services are listed above in my response to 3/Soc services which shows that this site is actually sustainably located and has little need for journeys to be made in an unsustainable manner. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++.

• How is Tanyards Field score (0) for 6/Env - Transport & Movement? As shown for objective 3 the table detailing distance the site is from services clearly show Tanyards Field is in an ideal location to enable future residents to walk or cycle to both the village centre and the numerous services provided in Staplefield. Handcross is less than 1 mile from Staplefield and this village has a shared service of the Health Centre, pharmacy, Dentist etc and this is easily walkable or cycleable. There has been no mention of the bus services that support this village which MSDC have considered to be better than that which services Ansty as detailed within Table 6 – Settlement Services of the Mid Sussex Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015. In addition Staplefield is serviced by the Handcross Community bus as detailed previously in this response. Staplefield is to get a speed reduction from 40mph limit to 30mph as detailed in this plan. What data has been provided by the Police for the parish to show that some sites are better than others for this criteria e.g. Cuckfield Road versus Tanyards Field which are both in the same village yet have been given

Page 92 of 99


different scores? Staplefield has a Safer Routes to school and has dropped curves located at strategic crossing points throughout the village e.g. to cross from Brantridge Lane to Common and then across to the Playground and the Victory Public House, there are many more and a simple walk around the village will show you where these are. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++.

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 7/Env - Heritage? How can Tanyards Field be negatively assessed when it is not visible from the Conservation Street Scene of Staplefield? Was use made of the site assessment conducted by MSDC for the neighbourhood plan process as shown above in my comments on 4/Soc –Landscape? Any development on Tanyards Field would actually enhance the village since it would have to conform with MSDC planning and Conservation requirements and be in line with the High Weald AONB Management Plan. This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria, if not a ++.

• Tanyards Field is shown to have a + in the box for 9/Env Character yet this box is coloured red, please amend this to show this as a green box.

• How is Tanyards Field negative (-) for: 10/Econ - Commercial? As listed above in this response there is significant village based businesses and Table 2 – Settlement Services of the Mid Sussex Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 shows that a very high percentage 28.9% of

Staplefield residents choose and are able to work from home. How has the other site in Staplefield been assessed to have no impact either positive or negative yet Cuckfield Road is in the same village only a short distance from Tanyards Field? This need to be corrected and show a + for this criteria.

• In light of this corrected scoring for Tanyards Field a review of the selection of sites should happen this may result in Tanyards Field being selected as suitable for inclusion as a chosen option for development within this plan.

Where is the methodology to enable the table above to be interpreted? With no key or weightings for criteria it is impossible to understand how decisions on sits have been made. I raised this at the meeting in Staplefield Village Hall on the 5th September 2015 and it was agreed that this was an issue that should be looked into.

How has it been derived from the consultation to date that the sites chosen in AS5 and AS6 are the most suitable when the site in AS6 is not that was put forwards for the consultation exercise, the site shown throughout the consultation has been a site of 2.27 hectares yet the site chosen is only 0.52 hectares – how has this been concluded? What correspondence has there been with the developers or land owners? Has this been offered to all sites? Is the land owner/developer in agreement with this reduced proposal? Have West Sussex County Council been involved with regards to the access issues? Why has this site been reduced when the larger number would have built the Village Centre and this was clear in all of their proposals?

It is impossible to see how the differing questions for ranking of sites in Ansty versus a

Agree/disagree/ Not stated/ Not sure question was posed for sites in Staplefield and Brook Street can be reconciled to show which have the most support. This is shown in the table below which uses the data produced from Questions 12, 13, 15 and 17 of the questionnaire:

Page 93 of 99

on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating Strategic Environmental Assessment Draft Final Report July 2015

1st Preference

2nd Preference

3rd Preference

4th Preference

5th Preference

Aggregated Preference

Average over 5 choices

No opinion 64 66 73 84 96 383 76.6 Barn Cottage 16 23 21 24 20 104 20.8 Ansty Cross Pub 52 18 18 11 4 103 20.6 Holly Bank 19 15 8 29 14 85 17 Bolney Road 27 15 15 10 10 77 15.4 Ansty Cross Garage 5 32 9 15 13 74 14.8 Challoners 5 6 18 14 21 64 12.8 The Lizard 7 11 23 11 8 60 12 Ansty Farms South 7 18 3 10 6 44 8.8 Ansty Farms North 13 5 13 4 8 43 8.6 West Riddens 4 3 12 6 13 38 7.6 Little Orchards 3 10 9 4 9 35 7 222 222 222 222 222 1110 222 Tanyards Field 52 Only one option of agree was given for these three sites Cuckfield Road 69 Sugworth Farm 55 If one considers the maximum score for any site the ranking is:







Page 21 of 24








If one looks at the average score achieved by each site in Ansty Vs the sites in Staplefield and Brook Street, since one can only conclude that any form of ranking is equivalent to an Agree yet one cannot count 5 opportunities to say agree against only one for Staplefield and Brook Street sites hence the use of average for the sites in Ansty, then the ranking is as follows: 1st = Cuckfield Road with 69 votes

2nd = Sugworth farm with 55 votes but this site has now been withdrawn

3rd = Tanyards Field with 52 Votes

4th = Barn Cottage with 20.8 votes

5th = Ansty Cross Pub with 20.6 votes – this site has already been fully developed

6th = Holly Bank with 17 votes

7th = Bolney Road with 15.4 votes

8th = Ansty Cross Garage with 14.8 votes - this site has been withdrawn

9th = Challoners with 12.8 votes

10th = The Lizard with 12 votes

11th = Ansty Farms South with 8.8 votes

12th = Ansty Farms North with 8.6 votes

13th = West Riddens with 7.6 votes

14th = Little Orchards with 7 votes

If this method was not used please can you provide the details of the method used to select sites.

Q12, 13, 15 Tanyards

Field Cuckfield Rd Sugworth

Farm

Agree 52 69 49 Not Sure 67 63 72 Disagree 96 84 80 Not Stated 7 6 21 Total Responses = 222 222 222 Agree + Not Sure = 119 132 121 “Not sure” is not “Disagree”, if people were opposed they would have marked “Disagree”.

“ Not sure” should be followed with further dialogue to enable conclusive results to be produced. Accordingly what weighting has “Not Sure” been given since the questionnaire gave this option this must have been established prior to the analysis. When one examines the total of responses received for “Agree” and “Not Sure” the numbers achieved for all three sites exceeds half of the respondents as shown in the table above. It is worthy of note that only the location maps were provided with the questionnaire, the site proposal as presented on the second visioning day were not provided and although there was reference to the website the questionnaire was paper based to take account of those who have no internet facilities so these people were not able to see this level of detail. The detail of the proposals only viewable through the website may have elicited stronger feelings for or against particular sites. How have the questionnaire responses been verified to ensure only those that are eligible to respond as shown in question 19 of the questionnaire have been used to inform the analysis and subsequent conclusions? i.e. how have non-parish residents and those not on the electoral roll been discounted from analysis. This is particularly pertinent since a large group of people from the Sugworth/Penland Farm Action Group (Haywards Heath residents close to these proposed site) were given a large number of blank questionnaires. Why has the analysis been broken into individual village responses – this is a parish plan not an individual settlement plan, there is one resultant plan not three, yet each community has its own needs that need to met in accordance with the aims of this neighbourhood plan and also to satisfy the NPPF requirements. Chapter 8, paragraph 8.4 Policy AS7, Page 19

• Why have green spaces only been identified in Ansty – what about Staplefield Common or the finest stand of Scots Pines in the county which are located opposite the Common, or Upper Common in Staplefield all of which are held to be of great value, within a conservation area and in the AONB so should be given the status of Open Space.

• Requests have been made to protect the stand of Scots Pines in all consultation to date, why have they not been protected?

• Why is there the need for both AS7 and AS9, both relate to the Ansty recreation ground? • What is being done to ensure that MSALP Policy R2 does not trump AS7 and AS9 rendering

them valueless?

• Is MSALP Policy R2 continued in the new MSDC District plan 2014-2031? If not what is the new policy reference since the old Local plan will have been superseded by the time this neighbourhood plan reaches referendum.

Chapter 8, paragraph 8.4 Policy AS9, Page 20

• This proposed extension to the Ansty Recreation Ground is within the High Weald AONB. It is accordingly covered by MSDC proposed polices DP10 and DP14 within the MSDC District plan 2014-2031 and will also be afforded protection as detailed within the NPPF.

• How will this neighbourhood plan align AS3 and AS9? • Where is the management regime that will maintain or enhance this area of the AONB since

for example frequent cutting will greatly reduce biodiversity. Page 23 Table 8.1: Cumulative impact of Neighbourhood Plan policies

• No constructive comment is possible on table 8.1 above since there is no explanations as to how these conclusions have been drawn.

• I am confused as to how sustainability objectives are set with no hope of meeting them through the supporting polices proposed. This would indicate some polices are too limiting or wrongly focused to enable success to be achieved.

Paragraph 9.1 page 24

• What is the degree of confidence that the proposed plan will mitigate against negative impacts from the proposed policies? “Should” does not leave me with confidence that the polices will provide any mitigation.

Paragraph 9.2 page 24 This plan will not facilitate “sustainable development” since it ignores the MSDC Settlement Sustainability Review May 2015 and its subsequent addendum. Through the focus of all the development into the smaller village that has only six services listed, two of which are required to enable Ansty to be classified as a Limited Local Service Centre when Staplefield meets all four criteria set to be classified as a Limited Local Service Centre, has 12 services listed, although several of these are duplicated and would be classified as a Category 3 settlement if were to have a BUAB defined is ludicrous.

Focusing all development in Ansty increases the reliance on a car for transport since only limited services are within walking distance – a convenience store, a petrol station, a village hall and sporting facilities. This is compared to all daily needs including spiritual and leisure are met in Staplefield, this reduces the reliance on the car since most needs can easily be met within walking distance.

Staplefield is serviced by better public transport than Ansty.

Staplefield is also serviced by Handcross Community Bus which gives a regular sustainable method of transport to most nearby towns and services.

Staplefield has better cycle access due to the Sustrans National Cycle Route 20.

Needs for the whole parish cannot be met with this one village approach.

It would appear that the High Weald AONB Management team have not been asked for advice or comment even though the plan claims to value this designation so highly – why? When will this be corrected?

Appendix A - Summary of responses from statutory bodies during SA scoping phase:

The Environment Agency highlighted the need to be aware of flooding risk yet one of the selected sites in Ansty will cause a potential flood risk.

As set out in Appendix B

Mid Sussex Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (2008) key implications for NP

“The Plan needs to ensure that new development avoids areas identified at risk of flooding and that the existing level of flood risk within and outside Ansty and Staplefield is not exacerbated and, where possible, reduced.” Yet Policy AS6 Land of Bolney Road Ansty is a known flood risk and within a recent planning application (made in advance of this plan) for AS5 Barn Cottage, Ansty a further flood risk was highlighted. How were these two sites chosen?

My final point on this Draft Final Report July 2015 is that no baseline data is shown for the key targets or indicators so how can success be measured? I have made this point in previous responses to consultation yet nothing has been done to address this gap in the plan.

Thank you for this opportunity to be involved in the Neighbourhood Plan Process for our Parish. If any of my points are not clear please do not hesitate to contact me and I will explain them. I am alarmed at the lack of detail provided for Staplefield, even though this is included in MSDC documentation you have referred to, I trust this situation will be rectified. Please can I have a response to my points raised above and assurance that any points I have highlighted to be factually incorrect in this plan or its supporting documentation are corrected as part of this exercise.

Date post:	29-Jan-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	trinhdung
View:	218 times
Download:	4 times

Web viewComments on Ansty & Staplefield Neighbourhood Plan Sustainability Appraisal incorporating...

Documents