consultation process - anstystaplefield-pc.gov.uk web viewpresentation followed by q&a session...

Ansty, Staplefield & Brook Street Consultation Statement

Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street Neighbourhood PlanConsultation Statement

January 2016

1. CONSULTATION PROCESS..............................................................................................................1

Introduction.......................................................................................................................................1

Organisational structure of the ASBSNP............................................................................................1

Public events and consultation activities...........................................................................................1

Stakeholder Consultations.................................................................................................................6

Engaging with hard-to-reach groups.................................................................................................6

2. KEY RESPONSES FROM CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRES...........................................................6

Housing Needs Survey (January 2012)...............................................................................................6

Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire and Visioning Days February 2012...........................................7

Sites Questionnaire...........................................................................................................................8

Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation.......................................................................................9

Appendix B: Responses to Reg 14 pre-submission consultation..........................................................12


1.CONSULTATION PROCESSIntroduction

1.1 This Consultation Statement has been prepared to fulfil the legal obligations of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 in respect of the Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street Neighbourhood Plan (ASBSNP).

1.2 The legal basis of this Consultation Statement is provided by Regulation 15(2) of Part 5 of the 2012 Neighbourhood Planning Regulations, which requires that a consultation statement should:

contain details of the persons and bodies who were consulted about the proposed neighbourhood development plan;

explain how they were consulted;

summarise the main issues and concerns raised by the persons consulted; and

describe how these issues and concerns have been considered and, where relevant addressed in the proposed neighbourhood development plan.

1.3 The policies contained in the ASBSNP are as a result of considerable interaction and consultation with the community and businesses within the parish. Work has involved community groups over approximately 3 years, as well as surveys, public meetings and events. This has been overseen and coordinated by the ASBSNP Steering Group which was formed to lead the ASBSNP. Views and interactions from this process led to the Vision and Objectives in Section 3 of the ASBSNP, and subsequently therefore form the basis for the key policies set out in Sections 4 to 10 of the ASBSNP.

Organisational structure of the ASBSNP

1.4 The ASBSNP has been prepared after extensive community involvement and engagement. The ASBSNP Steering Group, was called NPEX (Neighbourhood Plan Executive) and has reflected the views of the community of the need for well-designed development principally to address local needs, along with the provision of community infrastructure.

1.5 The structure put in place at the outset was a small Steering Group, known as NPEX (Neighbourhood Plan Executive). Membership comprised two Councillors nominated by the Parish Council and a representative from the Residents Association of each of the three villages in the parish. The Steering Group met regularly throughout the 3 year process.

1.6 A report from NPEX was provided at each Parish Council meeting and the minutes were made available on the Parish Council website. Occasionally minutes were not made public immediately because they contained sensitive information, all minutes have been made available since the draft plans became public.

1


Public events and consultation activities

1.7 The following table summarises the community engagement events and activities that have taken place

2


Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street Neighbourhood Plan: Community Engagement

Date Type Purpose Distribution/publicity Responses1. January

2012Housing Needs Survey(compiled and analysed by Action in Rural Sussex AIRS)

To determine existing and future housing needs in the parish, particularly for those on low or modest incomes.

731 questionnaires were sent by post. One to each household in the parish.

188 surveys were returned. 25.71% response rate.

2. February 2012

NP Questionnaire This was carried out at a very early stage in the process in order to publicise the plan, gather resident’s views on the parish and identify the issues that are important to them. This was used to help shape the broad objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan.

Distributed by hand to all households in the parish. Returns by pre-addressed envelope, or via collection boxes in public places – pubs, halls, etc or online.

258 responses were received of which 45 were completed online.

3. February 2012

Staplefield Visioning Day These were tied into the questionnaire and presented another opportunity for residents to come and find out more about NP and give their views on key issues.

Advertised with the NP questionnaire and by fliers circulated around public places, notice boards and website at http://www.anstystaplefield-pc.gov.uk/

Approximately 50 people attended. Residents commented via post it notes on visual displays and questions

4. February 2012

Brook Street Visioning Day As above for Brook Street. As above. Approximately 15 people attended.

5. February 2012

Ansty Visioning Day As above for Ansty. As above Approximately 50 people attended.

6. March 2012

Open letter and FAQs document

It was clear at the Visioning Days that there was some misunderstandings regarding the purpose of the Neighbourhood Plan. The FAQs document was produced

Notice boards, website. Distributed in public places, pubs, halls etc.

3


to provide more information on the NP purpose and process.

7. April 2012 Annual Parish Meeting with MSDC Cllr Gary Marsh and Claire Tester (MSDC officer) as guest speakers

Presentation followed by Q&A session from MSDC on NP purpose and process and fit with District Plan.

Notice boards and website. 25 residents attended.

8. March 2012

PC meeting Q&A session Notice boards and website. 55 residents attended.

9. May 2012 Public meeting with Staplefield Residents. Q&A session.

Explain NP process, allay concerns, and recruit helpers.

Notice boards and website. 20 Staplefield residents.

10. July 2012 Call for sites Landowners invited to identify sites for possible consideration in NP.

Notice boards and website. 14 sites were initially submitted. 2 of which were later withdrawn and two have since received planning permission and are currently being developed.

11. June 2013 Questionnaire re sites To obtain residents views on NP objectives, housing numbers and specific sites.

Distributed by hand to all households in the parish.

222 completed surveys were received.

12. June 2013 Staplefield Open Day To support the questionnaires. Each developer was invited to display the plans for their sites and provide a representative to answer questions.

Advertised when the questionnaire was distributed and also with fliers in pubs, halls etc. and on notice boards and website, Resident Association websites and Mid Sussex Times.

Approximately 60 residents attended.

13. June 2013 Ansty Open day As above As above Approximately 55 residents attended.

14. October 2014

Draft Sustainability Appraisal Scoping Report – 5 week consultation.

To obtain views on the draft scoping report.

Sent directly to the following statutory consultees:Mid Sussex District Council

Responses were received from all statutory consultees identifying no

4


Historic EnglandNatural EnglandThe Environment AgencyHigh Weald AONB Board

Advertised on the website and notice boards.

significant issues. Comments were taken on board and reflected in the final Scoping Report.

Two residents responded with comments.

15. July 2015 Pre-submission draft Neighbourhood Plan and Sustainability Appraisal incorporating SEA (Regulation 14) consultation.

To obtain views prior to submission to MSDC.

Statutory consultees, neighbouring parishes and other interested bodies were notified directly by email. The list included:Mid Sussex District Council, West Sussex County Council, West Sussex Highways Wivelsfield Parish Council, Haywards Heath Town Council, Burgess Hill Town Council, Cuckfield Parish Council, British Telecomm, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), English Heritage, Environment Agency, Gatwick Airport, Highways Agency,Homes and Communities Agency Horsham & Mid Sussex, CCG National Grid, Natural England, Historic England, High Weald AONB Board, Network Rail SGN Design, South East Water, Southern Gas Networks, Southern Water, Sussex PoliceCopies of the documents were placed in the pub in Staplefield and Ansty Sports and Social Club. A copy was also held for viewing by each of the three Residents Associations, the Parish Council Clerk and Mid Sussex District Council. The consultation was advertised on the three notice boards, the Parish Council website

The comments received and action taken can be viewed at Appendix x

5


and in the Mid Sussex Times.

The consultation ran for 8 weeks to allow extra time for the summer holidays. (14th July to 8th September 2015)

16. July 2015 Ansty Open Morning To give residents the opportunity to discuss the pre-consultation draft of the Neighbourhood Plan

Advertised via the Ansty Residents Association – the open morning followed their AGM, also via the website and noticeboards

Approximately 20 residents.

17. September 2015

Staplefield Open Morning As above Advertised via the Staplefield Residents Association, notice boards and website

Approximately 20 residents.

6


Stakeholder Consultations

1.8 Throughout the process NPEX worked closely with Mid Sussex District Council. Meetings were held at regular intervals with officers to address matters pertaining to housing numbers, sites and early drafts of the Sustainability Appraisal and Neighbourhood Plan.

1.9 Other consultees that NPEX engaged with included:

- West Sussex County Council Highways Department

- Local landowners/ site owners

- Neighbouring Parish/Town Councils including Haywards Heath Town Council, Burgess Hill Town Council and Cuckfield Parish Council

Engaging with hard-to-reach groups

1.10 Throughout the process NPEX was aware that, particularly in a rural area such as this, there was the potential for engagement to fail to reach certain groups. The consultations were advertised through a variety of media including notice boards, the website, leaflets and some were hand delivered. The events were held at the weekend or evening to ensure that working people could attend. Events were all held in both Staplefield and Ansty and occasionally Brook Street so that a choice of time and location would enable more people to attend.

1.11 An update on the Neighbourhood Plan was provided at the monthly Parish Council meetings which are open to the public. The minutes from the meetings are placed on three notice boards around the parish and the Parish Council website.

2.KEY RESPONSES FROM CONSULTATION QUESTIONNAIRES

Housing Needs Survey (January 2012)2.1. The full results of the survey are available to view on the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council

website. There are 26 households in housing need who have a local connection and who cannot afford to either purchase or rent on the open market.

Single person households 11

Couple without children 7

Family with 1 child 3

Family with 2 children 5

Family with 3 children 0

Total 26

7


Of the 26, 5 were on the housing register at that time. This data was considered alongside the more up to date information held on the Mid Sussex Housing Register, which is shown in the Neighbourhood Plan document.

Neighbourhood Plan Questionnaire and Visioning Days February 2012

2.2. The full results of the questionnaire and the comments received from the Visioning Days can be viewed on the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council website. In summary the main points raised were: Protecting the AONB and rural environment is important to 80% of respondents Overall, residents were not in favour of new housing in the parish, although there was

less opposition to it in Ansty from Ansty residents. Small groups of less than 10 houses, single dwellings and brownfield sites were the most

acceptable form of development in all areas. Residents of each area considered there to be a speeding problem where they live. Residents were asked for their two highest priorities in the parish. Popular answers

included maintaining village life or character, protecting trees, speeding, Ansty Village Centre, preventing large scale development, the community and the environment.

A number of other matters were identified that were subsequently considered to be outside the scope of the Neighbourhood Plan including provision of gas, and the

8


rerouting of the A272.

Sites Questionnaire2.3. The questionnaire asked some general questions regarding the number and type of housing

that would be acceptable in the parish and then some specific questions regarding the sites that had been submitted at that time. There were two sites submitted in Staplefield, 1 in Brook Street and 11 in Ansty. The distinct nature of the three parish wards meant that it was important to analyse the data gathered by ward as well as looking at the overall picture. The questionnaire asked for a simple “agree” “disagree” for the two sites in Staplefield, and in Brook Street but respondents were asked to rank the sites in Ansty due to the number under consideration. It was agreed that more weight should be given to the views of respondents regarding the ward in which they live.

2.4. Since the questionnaire was produced some of the sites are no longer available for consideration. These are: The Lizard, Ansty. This site was only available if Ansty Farms North were to be allocated.

It cannot therefore be considered as a stand-alone site. Ansty Cross pub. Permission was subsequently granted for development at this site and

the work is nearing completion. Ansty Cross garage. This site was withdrawn by the owner. Holly Bank, Ansty. Permission was recently granted for development at this site. Sugworth Farm, Borde Hill Lane. This site was withdrawn by the owner.

2.5. The main findings of the survey are as follows: 52% of the respondents felt that the parish can accommodate a new housing allocation

of 20-30 houses over the next 20 years. When analysed by ward, the figures were 62% of Ansty, 46% of Brook Street and 43% of Staplefield respondents.

26% of the respondents felt that the parish can accommodate a new housing allocation of 30-50 over the next 20 years. When analysed by ward, the figures were 34% of Ansty, 21% of Brook Street and 18% of Staplefield.

10% of respondents felt that the parish can accommodate a new housing allocation of more than 50.

92% of respondents thought that brownfield sites should be considered where appropriate.

96% believe that new housing should be sympathetic to the local village character. 90% wanted high density housing to be resisted. 33% of respondents thought that a development boundary should be drawn around

Staplefield to enable some development within the boundary. When analysed by ward, the figure for respondents in Staplefield ward was 22%.

23% thought that development should be allowed at Tanyards Lane, Staplefield. The figure for respondents in Staplefield was 13%.

31% of respondents thought that development should be allowed at Cuckfield Road, Staplefield. The figure for respondents in Staplefield was 16%.

25% of respondents thought that a development boundary should be drawn around Brook Street to allow some development within it. The figure for respondents in Brook Street was 7%.

9


35% of respondents thought that the existing development boundary at Ansty should be extended to allow some development within it. The figure for respondents in Ansty was 46%.

The detailed charts showing the rankings can be seen with the full questionnaire results on the Parish Council website at http://www.anstystaplefield-pc.gov.uk The sites that are still available and most favoured in Ansty by the Ansty respondents are; Barn Cottage, Bolney Road and Ansty Farms North.

Regulation 14 pre-submission consultation2.6. NPEX finalised the draft NP in July 2015. The Regulation 14 Pre-submission consultation ran

for an eight week period from 14th July to 8th September 2015. This was longer than the required six weeks to reflect the fact that the consultation was being held over the summer holiday period. The publicity for the consultation comprised: A notice and link to the plan was added to the Ansty and Staplefield Parish Council

website. A notice and link to the plan was added to the Mid Sussex District Council website. A notice was placed in the Mid Sussex Times. Posters were placed on the three notice boards around the parish. Statutory consultees and non-statutory consultees were notified by LDF alert (email).

These are listed at Appendix A. Two open mornings were held, one in Ansty at the start of the consultation and one in

Staplefield towards the end of the consultation period. Hard copies of the plan were held by Resident Association representatives and placed in

Ansty Sports and Social and a pub in Staplefield.

2.7. The responses to the consultation were published in full on the Parish Council website. The comments were carefully considered by NPEX with advice from Mid Sussex District Council and the planning consultant. There were no significant policy changes as a result of the consultation, but a number of changes were made to the documents. A summary of the comments made and the action taken as a result of the comments can be viewed at Appendix B.

10

http://www.anstystaplefield-pc.gov.uk/


Appendix A: List of Consultees.

Mid Sussex District Council forwarded the Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street pre-submission draft to the following bodies for comment:

Ardingly Parish Council Ashurst Wood Parish Council Balcombe Parish Council Bolney Parish Council Burgess Hill Town Council Cuckfield Parish Council East Grinstead Town Council Fulking Parish Council Hassocks Parish Council Haywards Heath Town Council Horsted Keynes Parish Council Hurstpierpoint & Sayers Common Parish Council Lindfield Parish Council Lindfield Rural Parish Council Newtimber Parish Council Poynings Parish Council Pyecombe Parish Council Slaugham Parish Council Turners Hill Parish Council Twineham Parish Council West Hoathly Parish Council Worth Parish Council Arun District Council Brighton and Hove City Counci National Grid Southern Gas Network Crawley Borough Council East Sussex County Council Natural England Environment Agency Highways Agency Horsham District Council Lewes District Council Network Rail (Kent, Sussex, Wessex) Southern Water Tandridge District Council Wealden District Council West Sussex County Council Surrey County Council South East Coast NHS MONO Consultants Ltd on behalf of 3, Orange, T-Mobile, Vodafone and O2 Historic England British Telecom

11


RWE npower BT Plc South East Water Colgate Parish Council Lower Beeding Parish Council Cowfold Parish Council Shermanbury Parish Council Woodmancote Parish Council Upper Beeding Parish Council Chailey Parish Council Ditchling Parish Council Wivelsfield Parish Council Danehill Parish Council Forest Row Parish Council Fletching Parish Council Dormansland Parish Council Felbridge Parish Council Burstow Parish Council NHS Sussex Southern Water Services Albourne Parish Council Energis Communications Adur and Worthing District Council The Coal Authority - Planning and Local Authority Liaison Thames Water South Downs National Park Authority Homes and Communities Agency UK Power Networks Sussex Police Sutton and East Surrey Water Southern Water Highways Agency

12


Appendix B: Responses to Reg 14 pre-submission consultation.

Consultee Policy No’/ Topic Comment Response ActionSection 1: Introduction1. Elliott Fielding

(Staplefield resident and owner of Tanyards Field)

Para 1.1 Word “parish” is missing The plan area does not cover the whole parish, but some of the wording has been changed for greater clarity.

Text amended.

2. E. Fielding Para 1.7 Status of Local Plan

Conflicts with para 1.1 The extant plan in the 2004 Local Plan and, although out of date, it is still the one we need to be in general conformity with. Para 1.8 reflects the fact that the emerging Plan is material and we need to take it into account.

No change to plan.

3. E. Fielding. 2. NPEX/ ASNPG Description of group producing the plan is not consistent.

Noted Text amended.

4. Parker Dann (representing Ansty Farms)E. Fielding

Plan Area Concerns regarding the excluded parts of the plan area and which areas will have a vote in the referendum.

The excluded areas are strategic in nature and dealt with by the MSDC District Plan and the Haywards Heath Town Council Neighbourhood Plan. Referendum areas will be determined by the Examiner.

No change to plan.

5. Turley on behalf of Countryside Properties (promoting Bolney Road site)E. Fielding

Para 1.7 Need to explain process and timescale for reviewing the plan in light of any conflicts with the final version of the District Plan

The Neighbourhood Plan will be reviewed in line with the District Plan, every 3-5 years, or if any changes prompt a review.

6. E. Fielding Para 1.4 Para 1.4 should add that planning applications will be assessed by the Parish Council once the NP has passed

The Parish Council is not the Planning Authority and will not assess planning applications. No need to add reference

No change to plan.

13


referendum. to referendum this document is a consultation draft.

Section 2: Local Context7. Mid Sussex Area

Bridleways GroupPara 2.10 Local context

Should include that “the new A23 underpass has improved links to the adjoining parish of Slaugham for Non-Motorised Users. A multiuser link of the Staplefield side still needs to be established” This is an item in the West Sussex Rights of Way Improvement Plan

Noted, but outside of NP. No change to plan.

8. Mid Sussex Area Bridleways Group

Para 2.19 Brook Street description

This section refers to well used public footpaths and bridleways in Brook Street. It should also refer to similar well used rights of way in Ansty and Staplefield inc the High Weald Landscape Trail.

Noted No change to plan.

9. M Fielding(Staplefield resident and owner of Tanyards Field)

Settlement descriptions

Ansty is not the larger settlement. Staplefield is.

There are more residents in the ward of Ansty – but that includes several areas that are outside of the main settlement.

Text amended.

10. M Fielding Staplefield description

Staplefield is more sustainable than Ansty. Lots of services. Better bus service

The Sustainability Appraisal shows a full appraisal of all policies including sites.

No change to plan.

11. M FieldingE Fielding

Staplefield description

The NP is an opportunity to showcase the parish.

Staplefield not given a chance to shine.

That is not the purpose of the NP. No change to plan.

12. E Fielding Staplefield description

Lots of information is missing e.g. Staplefield’s community events, flora and fauna, commercial element, footpaths and bridleways, clubs and societies.

The level of detailed provided about Staplefield is considered appropriate to the policies in the plan.

No change to plan.

13. E Fielding para 2.2 Why state where the name Ansty Descriptive paragraph providing No change to

14


originates from if it is not known. background history. plan.14. E Fielding para 2.3 Why are all the listed houses not

mapped?Descriptive paragraph. The detail is not relevant to this document.

No change to plan.

15. E Fielding para 2.5 No reference to the MSDC Transport Study.

It was referred to by the group and will be listed in the evidence base.

No change to plan.

16. E Fielding para 2.7 Staplefield still awaits a Conservation Character Assessment

Noted. Not an issue for the NP. No change to plan.

17. E Fielding para 2.7 Description of where Staplefield got its name from is of no value and not good enough

No change to plan.

18. E Fielding para 2.7 How many residents are in Staplefield Not relevant to this para. No change to plan.

19. E Fielding para 2.7 How many households in Staplefield Not relevant to this para. No change to plan.

20. E Fielding para 2.9 Scots pines in Staplefield should be protected

This could be addressed outside of the NP, by requesting a Tree Preservation Order..

No change to plan.

21. E Fielding para 2.10 A23 What traffic monitoring took place

Why is it assumed that Staplefield has traffic issues?

Highways carried out traffic monitoring surveys.

This para states that the traffic is better controlled. Staplefield residents consider that Staplefield has traffic management issues as evidenced in the first questionnaire.

No change to plan.

22. E Fielding Para 2.10 Why is the Safer Routes to School scheme not mentioned?

It is not relevant to the general description of Staplefield.

No change to plan.

23. E Fielding para 2.10 This para tries to show Staplefield as a noise and traffic blighted village.

Disagree No change to plan.

24. E Fielding para 2.10 When will speed limit reduction happen This is not an NP issue. NPEX understood that it was to happen this year, but have recently become aware of funding issues

No change to plan.

15


at WSCC. 25. E Fielding para 2.11 Are you saying that timber framed

buildings are sought? Why aren’t other listed buildings mapped or mentioned?

This is a general descriptive paragraph giving a flavour of Staplefield. There is no need to list every listed building

No change to plan.

26. E Fielding para 2.12 What is being said here? As above

27. E Fielding Brook Street description

Omitted the three day eventing course at Borde Hill

This is not relevant to the NP. No change to plan.

28. E Fielding Brook Street description

Omitted Borde Hill Gardens Agreed. Text amended.

29. E Fielding Brook Street photo Odd choice of photograph Noted

30. E Fielding para 2.21 Community profile covers people in the parish who are excluded from the plan area and is therefore not reflective of those included in the plan.

The part of the parish excluded because it is in the area which will become the Burgess Hill Northern Arc is sparsely populated and contains 6 farms. The part of the parish excluded at the development called Sandrocks was not built when the 2011 census was conducted and so will not skew the information. It is considered therefore that the best information that is available is being used and that it is largely reflective of the plan area.

No change to plan.

31. E Fielding para 2.21 Staplefield schools not mentioned. Agreed. Text amended.

32. E Fielding para 2.23 Detached dwellings are a character of the parish

The NP is about meeting need not replicating what is already there.

No change to plan.

33. E Fielding para 2.23 Queries regarding housing affordability This paragraph is part of the “community profile” and is providing an overview.

No change to plan

34. E Fielding para 2.23 “The average price of a detached property is over 40% higher than the

Noted No change to plan

16


national average” This is a statement of fact resulting from many market factors.

35. E Fielding para2.25 Public transport varies in each village – Staplefield has a fair bus service and a community bus.MSDC Transport survey not referred to.

Noted. But there is still a high reliance on cars. Census data shows car ownership to be at much higher levels than nationally or the average in West Sussex. MSDC Transport Survey was reviewed as part of the evidence base.

No change to plan.

36. E Fielding para 2.26 “There are no health facilities located in the parish” This statement is incorrect because Staplefield benefits from the mobile dispensary service in Handcross.

The statement is correct because Handcross is not in the parish. Health services would normally refer to doctors and dentist practises, not dispensaries.

No change to plan

37. E Fielding para 2.29 Queries regarding the development of Ansty Village Centre

Detail requested is not all relevant to this plan.

No change to plan

38. E Fielding para 2.30 There is not sufficient funding to build the new centre

The funding of the new centre is outside the NP.

No change to plan.

39. E Fielding para 2.31 No mention of Staplefield or Brook Street public space

Site allocations are in Ansty and so more information is provided about Ansty.

No change to plan.

40. E Fielding Para 2.32 What are the saved policies from the Local Plan

The ones that are relevant to the NP are listed in para 2.32. MSDC can provide the others.

No change to plan.

41. E Fielding para 2.33 Queries regarding ownership of Ansty Recreation Ground and arrangement with Ansty Village Centre trustees

The ownership and management arrangements are not relevant to the NP.

No change to plan.

42. E Fielding para 2.35 Queries regarding the District Plan policies

The District Plan policies are shown in the draft District Plan drafted by MSDC. The NP does not need to elaborate on these.

No change to plan.

43. E Fielding Ansty as a sustainable village

Will Ansty be sustainable when the village hall is demolished?

There are no plans to demolish the hall without replacing it.

No change to plan.

Section 3: Vision and Objectives44. Mid Sussex Area

Bridleways GroupPara 3.2 Vision Should include “multi-user routes and

improved bus services” to ensure that Noted Text

amended.

17


the needs of pedestrians, horse riders and mobility vehicle users are reflected

45. Turley Para 3.2 Vision The vision statement includes the aspiration to see “no significant expansion” of the villages. It is suggested that “significant” is replaced with “harmful”.

Noted. No change to plan.

46. E Fielding Vision for Ansty and Staplefield

The vision has already failed because the sites chosen for development in Ansty expand the settlement of Ansty into the surrounding countryside.

The sites chosen will require an expansion of the Built Up Area Boundary, but the sites remain close to the centre of the village and do not expand significantly into open countryside. Of all the available Ansty sites these are the ones closest to the centre and are immediately adjacent to the BUAB

No change to plan.

47. E Fielding para 3.2 Can NPEX control bus services?

Want to be better connected to other villages outside the parish.

This is a vision not a policy.

Outside scope of NP

No change to plan

48. E Fielding para 3.2 How do we know old people will want to downsize and will all young families need small houses?

The vision refers to making smaller houses available for younger families and those wishing to downsize. It does not assume that all young families and older people will want small houses.

No change to plan.

49. E Fielding Para 3.3 - objectives

Various queries regarding NP objectives The objectives are listed as high level goals or targets, the level of detail requested is not appropriate for this plan.

No change to plan.

Section 4: Spatial Strategy50. E Fielding para 4.1 Need to add the word “parish”

otherwise Brook Street is left outThe plan area does not include the whole parish, but the NP is now referred to as the Ansty, Staplefield and Brook Street Neighbourhood Plan.

Text changes

18


51. TurleyHighways

Map of BUAB on page 18

The map should be amended so that the built-up area boundary accords with the Local Plan, with the exception of the extension to accommodate the two residential allocations.

There was an error in the boundary shown. It has now been redrawn to accord with the Local Plan, but with an extension to encompass the two new allocations.

Map amended.

52. Parker Dann Introduction of a Built up area Boundary

Will have unintended consequences because it will mean that infill housing and the demolition of existing properties and the erection of multiple replacements will be acceptable in principle. This could change the character of Ansty.

A BUAB already exists in Ansty. An extension to it is proposed so that it includes the residential allocations identified in the plan.

No change to plan.

53. E Fielding para 4.5 No clear support for expansion of BUAB in Ansty.

There was however support for additional housing in Ansty which can only be accommodated through expansion of the BUAB

No change to plan.

54. ASP on behalf of Rural Developments Ltd

Parker Dann

E. Fielding

Policy AS2 Local Gaps

Lack of evidence to support local gap between Brook Street and Cuckfield.

No robust evidence to support local gaps and so policy should be deleted.

Gap between Ansty and Cuckfield is not mentioned.

This area is within the AONB. Need to conform with emerging District Plan policy DP11 – preventing coalescence.

As above.

Agreed.

Text amended

Policy changed to include this gap.

55. Tuckwell (Staplefield Resident)

AONB Support no development in Staplefield due to AONB

Noted.

56. B. BirthwrightM. FieldingE. Fielding

AONB Various queries related to the lack of allocated sites in the AONB.

There are suitable alternative sites within the parish so development in the AONB is not necessary. The NPPF and emerging

Sustainability Appraisal amended to

19


policies DP10 and DP14 aim to protect the countryside and AONB. Areas without constraint should be considered first.

Site selection is explained in the Sustainability Appraisal. This document has been amended to give greater clarity.

give greater clarity.

57. E Fielding para 4.14 How has community expressed desire to provide further policy support for these principles of protection in the NP

Questionnaire results showed support for these general principles.

58. E. Fielding AONB Queries regarding involvement of High Weald AONB

High Weald AONB unit was included in the consultation.

No change to plan.

59. Natural England Policy AS3 Welcome this policy which reinforces the protection afforded by the High Weald AONB in the emerging Mid Sussex District Plan, NPPF and the High Weald AONB Management Plan.


60. E. Fielding Built up area boundary para 4.4

Policy C1 of Local Plan is already being breached by land owners who have been granted planning permission

The NP must conform to the policies in the Local Plan. Breaches of the Local Plan policies are a matter for MSDC as the local planning authority.

No change to plan.

Section 5: Housing Mix61. Parker Dann

TurleyPolicy AS4 housing mix

Not using best evidence to support policy.

Requirement for the majority of dwellings in the early part of the plan period to be brought forward as 1 and 2 bed dwellings is too prescriptive and unrealistic in terms of the established context of the settlements. The second para of the policy should read “Residential developments shall include

Providing houses similar to those already there does not necessarily meet the need. The need was established by reference to the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) and the housing register. The latest figures from the housing register will be shown in the evidence base.

No change to plan.

20


a proportion of 1 and 2 bedroom dwellings to meet current housing needs”

62. E Fielding para 5.7 Policy DP28 of the Mid Sussex Emerging Local Plan – how have future needs been established, what trending has been done etc.

This is a Local Plan issue and so a matter for MSDC

No change to plan

Section 6: Residential Site Allocations63. ASP

E. FieldingM. FieldingParker Dann

Housing Need/numbers

Numbers do not meet identified need.Discrepancy with numbers identified by MSDC.

132 is not the target in the Plan, but it is the figure provided by Mid Sussex District Council as a proportion of district-wide Housing number agreed with MSDC. The number does not take account of the characteristics of individual parishes. The numbers proposed in the NP have been agreed by MSDC and take account of the fact that c3500 houses will also be built within the parish as a strategic allocation at the Burgess Hill Northern Arc.

No change to plan.

64. M. Fielding Housing numbers/ Northern Arc

Double counting. Our plan and the Burgess Hill NP both claiming for need.Will those who have a connection with the parish wish to live in the strategic developments?

Northern Arc is in the District Plan not the BHTC NP. It will meet the need from a wide area including our parish. The figures have all been agreed with MSDC.

No change to plan.

65. Parker Dann

E. Fielding

Affordable housing need

Various queries regarding the affordable housing need were raised including the figure of 26 identified in the Housing Needs Survey (2012) which will not be met through the NP. It is thought that this survey is out of date.

Some of the affordable housing need will be met in the Burgess Hill Northern Arc. The latest figures from the housing register have also been used which suggest a lower current need.

Plan amended to include latest figures from the MSDC housing register

66. Turley Residential allocations

The NP should provide more flexibility over the provision of housing sites

The NP will be reviewed in line with the DP approximately every 3-5 years.

No change to plan.

21


between 2014 and 2031 and include a monitoring policy to assess the progress of housing development in the parish. Consideration should be given to the inclusion of land to the west of the existing allocation (policy AS6) to provide further housing in the village.

67. Turley Policy AS6: Bolney Road site allocation

Reference to the vehicular access in policy AS6 should either be amended to refer to the northern boundary or omitted. The supporting text to proposed housing allocation at land off Bolney Road should acknowledge that the site has capacity to accommodate between 20 and 30 dwellings.

A portion of the site was allocated in order to provide a compact site that does not significantly alter the settlement pattern.

Text amended to provide additional explanation.

68. B GriffithsK EvansL PinkAll Ansty residentsE. Fielding

Policy AS6: Bolney Road site allocation

Considered by MSDC to be not developable.

The MSDC assessment was based on the whole site that was originally submitted. The NP has allocated only a portion of the site in order to make it more sustainable. The sustainability assessment shows that the reduced site is reasonable when compared to the alternatives.

No change to plan.

69. B GriffithsP DuppeeK EvansS MaceR UttingL PinkAll Ansty residents


Volume and speed of traffic on A272 makes this site too dangerous. Site entrance not appropriate.

WSCC Highways were invited to visit the site and were of the view that the access could be made to work.

The access would be formally assessed in detail by Highways at the planning application stage.

No change to plan.

70. P DupeeAnsty resident


Challoners is a more compelling site The larger site would mean demolition of a house of architectural merit. The smaller site, preserving the house, would

No change to plan

22


not sufficiently meet the housing need. 71. P Dupee

K EvansAnsty residents

Policy AS6: Bolney Road site allocation.

Height of Bolney Road site is intimidating for houses opposite and it would dominate the village.

This could be addressed through appropriate site layout and design.

No change to plan.

72. P DupeeS MaceAnsty residents


No bus from Ansty to Burgess Hill This would need to be addressed outside the NP.

No change to plan.

73. K EvansAnsty resident


There is a ransom strip along the edge of the site put in place by the Council to stop such development

The land ownership has been checked and there is no ransom strip. Highways own a strip of verge alongside the Bolney Road which is standard practise to enable them to access and maintain the highway.

No change to plan.

74. K EvansAnsty resident


Drainage would require improvement if site is to be allocated.

The drainage system would need to be reviewed as part of a planning application.

No change to plan.

75. M. FieldingE. Fielding

Policy AS6: Bolney road site allocation.

The public were consulted on the whole site, but only part of it has been allocated. The allocated site has not been put to the public forum.

The whole site was put to the public forum through the questionnaire. The initial consultation and technical assessment showed the whole site to be unsustainable and so the area was reduced. The pre-submission consultation document has given the opportunity for comment on the allocated/reduced site.

No change to plan.

76. B Birthwright (Staplefield resident and owner of Cuckfield Road site in Staplefield)

Lack of development in Staplefield

Will jeopardise viability of local businesses.

No change to plan.

77. B Birthwright Lack of development in Staplefield

No provision in Staplefield for young people wishing to remain in the village

Provision could still be made through an exception site, outside of the NP.

No change to plan.

78. B Birthwright Cuckfield Road site Should be reconsidered to help Noted. No change to

23


not allocated Staplefield prosper. plan.79. N Hampshire

(Brook Street resident and owner of Meadow Wood site)

Residential allocations

Wish to promote new site not previously submitted in Brook Street.

This site was proposed 2 years after the call for sites closed. It will not be considered for inclusion in the NP because there are plenty of alternatives. The site is also in the AONB.

No change to plan.

80. Parker Dann Para 6.3 residential allocations

Incorrect in assumption that as part of the Northern Arc development will address a significant portion of Ansty’s need. If repeated by every NP then the capacity will diminish

The Northern Arc is in the parish of Ansty and Staplefield, albeit outside of the plan area. It is not unreasonable to assume that some of the housing need will be met through a development that is so close.

No change to plan.

81. Parker Dann Para 6.5 The assertion that windfalls are “inevitable” is incorrect.

No change to plan.

82. E Fielding para 6.5 Where are the houses that have been built since the start of the plan period?

Permission has been granted for houses at Ansty Cross and Highfields. Several other applications have been submitted.

83. E Fielding para 6.7 How has future growth been planned for? How are needs of Staplefield and Brook Street to be accommodated?

Infill will address most of the needs. Alternatively, an exception site could be considered outside of the NP. The plan will be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure it still meets the needs.

No change to plan.

84. Environment Agency

AS5 and AS6: Tree belts around proposed development sites

Support the intention to retain and enhance tree belts around proposed development sites.


Section 7: Leisure and Recreation85. Environment

AgencyLand north of the Recreation Ground

It appears that this has been under a stewardship agreement and therefore may warrant closer inspection to assess whether its biodiversity value has increased and might require specific


24


measures.86. Mid Sussex Area

Bridleways GroupPara 7 Leisure and recreation

This section should include informal recreation e.g. protection or enhancement of a rights of way network

This section refers to protecting specific pieces of land. Rights of Way are covered in policy DP20 of the emerging District Plan and by WSCC.

No change to plan.

87. E Fielding Para 7.1 to 7.5 Why are only Ansty green spaces included?

Questions regarding the lease for the field owned by AS&SC and the management of the village hall site etc.

Staplefield Common is registered common land and is not considered to be under threat.

Not relevant to this plan

No change to plan.

88. E. Fielding Para 7.6 What about the other facilities in Staplefield i.e. not just the pavilion?

These are not considered relevant to the NP.

No change to plan.

89. E. Fielding Para 7.7 Questions regarding car trips to Ansty Rec and other traffic issues in Ansty.

These queries will not be addressed in the NP. Impact of traffic generated by the Northern Arc are strategic issues addressed by MSDC.

No change to plan.

90. E Fielding Para 7.13 Do we need another cricket pitch? The additional pitch identified in the MSDC Playing Pitch Strategy is already in place.

Text amended for clarity.

91. E Fielding Policy AS7 Ansty Village Centre and Recreation Ground

Policy does not protect the asset sufficiently from development.

The policy allows only ancillary development that enhances the role and function of the Village Centre and Recreation Ground e.g. storage facilities or extension.

No change to plan.

Section 8: Heritage92. E Fielding Para 8.1-8.3 Where did the community express a

desire to provide further policy support for the principles of protection in the NP?

In the responses to the first questionnaire.

No change to plan.

25


Section 9: Broadband Infrastructure93. E Fielding Para 9 Broadband

InfrastructureThe figure for people working from home is higher than the 10% shown.

The AiRS Community Profile based on census shows that 10.3% work from home in the parish. The source data (Census 2011) has been double checked and the figure is correct.

No change to plan.

Section 10: Economy94. G. Conway Policy AS12 Objective of policy is clear but the

proposed criteria for establishing redundancy could lead to unforeseen circumstances and the possibility of inflating rents. Suggest changing wording so that applications for a change of use to an activity that does not provide employment opportunities will only considered if it can be demonstrated that there is no reasonable prospect of its use or continued use for employment.

It is considered that the policy is robust. If rents were to be deliberated inflated to discourage tenants then this would be a justification for refusal.

No change to plan.

95. S TuckwellE Fielding

Economy There are a number of offices in farm building conversions in Staplefield which are not mentioned in the plan.

Policy AS12 does cover all commercial units. A complete list is not necessary.

No change to plan.

Section 11: Transport96. Mid Sussex Area

Bridleways GroupPara 11.1 Transport Development within the NP will also

generate traffic. The plan should state that these developers must take into account the impact on NMUs (non-motorised users) by providing off road alternatives or CIL money.

This relates to the Burgess Hill Northern Arc which is not within the NP area. It is therefore not within the gift of the NP to directly address this.

No change


Para 11.2 and 11.3 Should say “traffic management and safe alternatives for NMUs


Para 11.4-11.7 Equestrians are omitted from the Cycling and Walking section.

This section refers to cycling and walking as a means of transport rather than

No change to plan.

26


leisure interests.99. Mid Sussex Area

Bridleways GroupPara 11.6 Should say “a more comprehensive

right of way and cycling”“Footpath” has been changed to “footway” i.e. routes alongside roads used to get from A to B, rather than leisure.

Text amended.

100. E Fielding Para 11 Various questions relating to the allocation and spending of CIL resulting from the Northern Arc

This is not within the scope of this plan No change to plan.

101. E Fielding Para 11.4-11.7 Staplefield cycling route and walk to school scheme should be mentioned

Agreed. Text amended.

Comments regarding methodology102. Parker Dann General Plan produced through a transparent

process and in a professional manner.Thank you. No change to

plan103. E Fielding General The Staplefield Resident Association

only meet once a year.The inclusion of a representative from the Staplefield Association ensured that Staplefield was represented. The frequency of their meetings is outside the control of the NP.

No change to plan.

104. M Fielding Site selections Landowners excluded from the process Met with all landowners and they were invited to display at public consultation. They were excluded from the site selection process and all offers of assistance in plan preparation from site owners was rejected in order to ensure independence in the preparation of the NP.

Addressed in the Consultation statement

105. M Fielding Enabling donations Were any made and was it a factor in site selection?

None were made and it was not a factor in site selection.

No change to plan.

106. M FieldingE Fielding

Consultation process

Various queries regarding consultation process, consultees and outputs.

This Consultation Statement describes the consultation process.

107. E Fielding Website Some comments regarding information missing from the website.

The website will be fully updated with all required documents, minutes, evidence base list etc. as part of the next stage

27


(Reg 16)108. E Fielding Questionnaire

responses and analysis

Survey responses not submitted to ASNPG (NPEX) but to Clerk.

Queries regarding the questionnaire analysis.

Validity of residents – were they checked against the electoral roll

The Clerk’s address is the correspondence address for the group.

Questionnaire interpretation described in Consultation Statement.

No it was important to allow some anonymity. Respondents were asked to include their postcode. No requirement for them to be on the electoral roll.

No change to plan.

109. E Fielding Para 1.8 More information required on methods used to inform recommendations and conclusions

This Consultation Statement has provided more details.

110. E Fielding Para 1.8 Meetings Various questions regarding meetings. This Consultation Statement has provided more details on the process. The website has more information.

111. E Fielding Para 1.8 Where is the output from the Visioning Days

Will be one of the documents posted on the Parish Council website.

112. E Fielding Para 1.8 Key documents

Which documents are considered key Key documents include the evidence base, SA Scoping Report, Sustainability Appraisal, Statement of Basic Conditions and the Consultation statement. More will be published on the website at the next stage.

No change to plan.

113. E. Fielding Where have the interests been recorded?

Non PC members are not obliged to comply with the Code of Conduct. However, volunteers were asked to complete a ROI form so that their interests were made clear.

No change to plan.

114. E Fielding para 6.3 Where are the agendas, minutes and notes from meetings with MSDC

There have been lots of informal discussion and email exchanges with

No change to plan.

28


MSDC. It was not always appropriate to publish notes during the process when sensitive information was discussed.

115. M Fielding Second questionnaire

Results can be interpreted in different ways. Ranking in Ansty vs agree/disagree in Staplefield make it difficult to compare.

Why no built up area boundary in Staplefield.

Ranking was used for Ansty sites due to the number of them. It was not necessary to rank the two sites in Staplefield.

Where policies relate to individual settlements more weight is given to the views of the residents of those settlements. e.g. 53% of Staplefield residents were opposed to a BUAB. 66% opposed development at Cuckfield Road and 78% opposed development at Tanyards Field.

Dispersed nature of Staplefield makes it difficult to draw a BUAB without having unintended consequences eg opening up possibility of infill that may not be appropriate for the village. MSDC inform us that this is why one has not been drawn previously.

No change to plan

116. E Fielding 48. to 50 para 2.21 Queries regarding the source of data. Why isn’t ONS data used

Community profile from Action in Rural Sussex (AiRS) uses data from the ONS, Census 2011 and other sources e.g. Department of Work and Pensions, Department of Education etc.

No change to plan.

Comments of a general nature117. The Environment

AgencyStandard Checklist recommendations


118. Environment Agency

Windfall sites Reference should be made in the plan to the need for appropriate biodiversity

This would be a validation issue when planning applications are submitted.

No change to plan.

29


surveys of windfall sites.119. Gatwick Airport General No concerns unless any wind turbines

are proposed in the future.Noted. No change to

plan.120. Southern Water Additional policy New and improved utility infrastructure

will be encouraged and supported in order to meet the identified needs of the community.

New residential and commercial development will be permitted only if sufficient infrastructure capacity is either available or can be provided in time to serve it.


121. Sport England General Standard generic response Noted. No change to plan.

122. M Fielding Infrastructure Plan When will this be shown There will not be a full Infrastructure Plan supporting the NP. The infrastructure needs that are in the NP reflect the engagement with the community and review of the MSDC evidence base, including its district-wide Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

No change to plan.

Comments on the Sustainability Appraisal. NB: Some of the comments received on the Sustainability Appraisal were duplicates of comments received on the NP itself. This section deals only with those comments that are unique to the SA.

123. M Fielding Sustainability Appraisal. Section 8 assessment of NP policies against sustainability objectives

Queries regarding the explanation of the assessment, missing key and assessments given.

This whole section in the Sustainability Appraisal has been revisited and given greater clarity.

Sustainability Appraisal Section 8 text amended.

124.14.

Parker DannE. Fielding

Site Selection Queries regarding the process for selecting sites.

The Sustainability Appraisal has been subject to a thorough review and now

Sustainability Appraisal text

30


Queries relating to the analysis of questionnaire data. Selected sites not justified. Tanyards Field appears to be supported but has not been allocated.

more clearly documents the appraisal of policies.

Tanyards Field, Staplefield was not supported by the residents of Staplefield. Where policies relate to individual settlements more weight is given to the views of the residents of those settlements.

Ansty residents were in the main happy to accept some development in Ansty,

amended.

125. Parker Dann Sustainability Appraisal

Ansty Farms North shown to be a sustainable site with some support from the community. Table showing assessment of NP policy options requires a key. Why does Ansty Farms North show a negative impact on social objection 1 housing?Ansty Farms North should be allocated for development.

Agreed that some of the sustainability assessments were incorrect. The site is now shown as positive against 1/Soc, but negative against 9/Env. Overall assessment does not change.

Ansty Farms is also potentially a strategic site, which might be considered outside of the NP.

Sustainability assessment reviewed and redrafted with greater explanation and key.

126. S Tuckwell Infrastructure Staplefield Village Hall and Staplefield Pavilion are important to the village and worthy of support and improvement

This would need to be addressed outside of the NP.

No change to plan.

127. E Fielding Methodology/ vision

Various queries regarding the vision and what constitutes a vision.

The vision is meant to be an aspirational statement enabling us to think about what things might look like in the future. It does not have a formal definition in the plan, but helps to provide some context and direction for the plan.

No change to plan.

128. E Fielding SWOT Analysis Staplefield has a shop The shop at The Victory was available for a short while but has now closed.

31


Ansty garage and shop under threat of development.

Opportunities – missed opportunity to provide infrastructure

Brantridge School missing.

This site was originally submitted to the Neighbourhood Plan for consideration, but was subsequently withdrawn by the owner and is not considered to be under threat.Infrastructure can only be delivered with significant infrastructure which would be unstainable in this location.

Text amended

129. E Fielding 21. Para 1.9 Who else has been involved in the process.

Not relevant to these documents. No change to plan.

130. E Fielding 54 to 65 para 2.23 Various queries regarding the data ONS data is used by AiRS to compile the profile it is robust

No change to plan.

131. E Fielding Tourism Tourism is not relevant to the NP Need to check figures and amend

32


33

consultation process - anstystaplefield-pc.gov.uk web viewpresentation followed by q&a session...

Documents