Agenda item

To receive questions from and provide answers to the public in relation to matters which in the opinion of the person presiding at the meeting are relevant to the business of the meeting

a) Laura Goldsmith asked the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development:

In relation to the proposed site at Smithers Rough, Rudgwick, the Draft Site Allocations DPD states (page 20) “WSCC also raised concerns regarding the vehicular access.  However it has since been confirmed that a suitable access can be achieved”.  The Recommendation (page 21) asserts that “Now that further technical work has been carried out and a satisfactory highway access has been identified, the site is considered suitable for 15 pitches”.

On Monday 20^th November Mr. Ian Gledhill, Principal Planner at WSCC indicated to me on the telephone that although HDC has submitted various access proposals since the closure of the consultation, none of these have removed his concerns over visibility and the complete lack of pedestrian access at the site, expressed in his comments in the DPD consultation (page 22 of the Regulation 18 Consultation Report – Summary of Representations).

In the circumstances how can the Cabinet approve for public consultation a flawed document which is factually inaccurate in asserting that a satisfactory access has been identified at Smithers Rough, when this is clearly not the case?

The Director of Planning, Economic Development and Property replied as follows on behalf of the Cabinet Member:

Since the close of the previous consultation, the Council has undertaken further technical work on how a satisfactory access could be provided at the Smithers Rough site.  This has been undertaken in consultation with West Sussex County Council.  Whilst it is recognised that the County Council still has some reservations with regard to visibility and pedestrian access, it has confirmed that this would not be a ‘showstopper’.  The Council therefore considers that access can be achieved and that it remains appropriate to carry out further consultation on this site.

Ms Goldsmith, as a supplementary question, asked if the Council would disclose details of the proposals for access they were proposing to enable residents to comment upon them.

The Director of Planning, Economic Development and Property replied that, as part of the consultation process, the Council would look to design and consult on a proposed access to the site.

b) V. Johnson asked the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development:

Access and road safety issues were the reason for HDC’s refusal of planning permission for gypsy/traveller use of Smithers Rough as far back as the 1990’s (RW69/92).  Although proposed for gypsy and traveller use in the last Site Allocation process in 2011, the site was not pursued by HDC due to objections on highways grounds from WSCC. There are no pavements and no public rights of way near the site.    Expert evidence submitted to HDC in the recent consultation demonstrates a 20% increase in traffic volume and a 3 mph increase in 85th percentile vehicle speeds on the A281 adjacent to the site since 2012.

Policy 23(b) of the HDPF requires that a site should be served by a ‘safe and convenient vehicular and pedestrian access’.  In the light of the above, how can HDC assert that now in 2017 Smithers Rough meets this criterion when previously it did not?

The Director of Planning, Economic Development and Property replied as follows on behalf of the Cabinet Member:

The Council recognises that there were a large number of comments submitted in relation to this site with regard to access.  As I said in my response to Ms Goldsmith, the Council has undertaken further technical work to ensure that safe access to the site can be secured. The site proposed is also smaller than that that was previously considered.  At this stage we have not been advised that there are any ‘showstoppers’ and it is recognised that further work is still required to demonstrate that safe and suitable access can be achieved.  It is considered that it is still appropriate to carry out further consultation on this site.  Please note that if this consultation is agreed, the site is not Council policy, and there is an opportunity for you to make further comment son these matters.  These comments will of course be taken into account when considering the next steps.

Ms Johnson, as a supplementary question, asked how it could be said that the site was now smaller when instead of 12 pitches, 15 were now proposed?

The Director of Planning, Economic Development and Property replied that in the 1990s, when the Council took action against the site, there was a much larger number of pitches on the site compared to the number now proposed.

c) Edwin Lewzey asked the Cabinet Member for Planning and Development:

Given that development of Smithers Rough as a traveller site for 15 pitches would require significant investment, including; major road infrastructure changes; groundworks; site decontamination; pedestrian access to the local village a mile away; increased capacity at the doctors surgery and school classrooms (Rudgwick primary school currently at capacity).  How will HDC fund the development and at what point does the site become too expensive to deliver?

The Director of Planning, Economic Development and Property replied as follows on behalf of the Cabinet Member:

At this stage, the proposals in the draft Gypsy and Traveller document are not Council policy and are for consultation only.  The Council recognises that if, following further consultation the site continues to be a realistic prospect in planning terms, there are potential costs in bringing the site forward, which will need to be considered.  It should however be noted, that without the delivery of a Gypsy and Traveller site document, there will be continuing and ongoing costs to the Council in considering applications, planning appeals and potential enforcement action on unauthorised sites and these will be a factor in any decision which is reached.  We have had no indication from the education authority or health authority during the previous consultation that this proposed site would result in the need for the further expansion of existing schools and medical facilities.  If such a response is received during the forthcoming consultation, such costs will be taken into account when considering whether this or any other site should continue to be allocated.

Mr Lewzey’s supplementary question was if the money already spent on dealing with the unauthorised use of the site would be taken into account as part of the costs associated with the development of this site?

The Director of Planning, Economic Development and Property replied that the Council would look at all the issues that had to be considered and cost was one of the factors that had to be looked at.

d) David Scott asked the Leader:

Given that no mention is made of New Street Gardens, the new Winterton Court development, or the parking and traffic situation on New Street and surrounding roads, is it fair to assume the consultants did not undertake a site visit when drawing up their proposals for building an access road for any housing development on the RSA site?

The Leader replied as follows:

The consultants carried out site visits on all sites, including the RSA and Station car parks, with Horsham District Council officers in attendance.

Mr Scott’s supplementary question was that, if they had undertaken a site visit they would have noted both that it was a garden with a name and the traffic situation in the area and therefore was it not remiss of them to miss out this information?

The Leader replied that, whilst the concerns and points being made by residents were understood, the consultants were merely looking at one possible access to the car park site as an option and this in no way constituted a planning application.

e) Russell Parker asked the Leader:

In light of the overwhelming response to the recent change.org petition and social media awareness campaign concerning the placement of a junction at New Street Gardens; does HDC recognise the deep concern expressed by the community regarding adding to the already stressed traffic conditions, blind junctions, bottlenecks, constrained parking, ultimately leading to cars mounting curbs and other risks to pedestrians in this child and family dense Victorian neighbourhood?

The Leader replied as follows:

The report is a statement of fact: there is possible access to the car park through this piece of land.  I understand that, having achieved a recreational area in this location one would not want to remove it but I cannot change the fact that that piece of land exists and when the consultants looked at it they simply pointed out that this is a possibility.  However, there is no plan and if you look at the whole of the report it has words in it such as ‘may be deliverable’ or ‘this could be’.  If it were ever to come to fruition then it would need to go through the normal planning procedure.

Mr Parker’s supplementary question was: does the Council recognise the concerns expressed?

The Leader replied that the Council had heard the concerns but this was not a planning application but purely a statement of fact that access could be achieved through that piece of land.  Should it come to the point where the car park was proposed for development, then the traffic situation and loss of amenity land would be assessed as part of the planning process.