neighbourhood development plan€¦ · web viewover the following 2 weeks, 4-16 december 2017,...

HNDP/S5NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN

PARISH OF HELLINGLY

PUBLIC CONSULTATION

PHASE 3 (REGULATION 14)

REPORT OF THE PROJECT TEAM

FEBRUARY 2018

HELLINGLY NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PLAN

PUBLIC CONSULTATION PHASE 3

1. Public consultation on the Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) for the parish of Hellingly (HNDP/4) was carried out in accordance with Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 between 1 December 2017 and 26 January 2018. Because the consultation covered the Christmas and New Year period, it was extended to 8 weeks instead of the usual 6 weeks minimum required by Regulation 14.

2. The Pre-submission NDP and its 10 supporting Topic Papers were entered on to the Parish Council website on Thursday 30 November 2017, one day prior to the commencement of the consultation. Hard copies of the Plan and the Topic Papers were put on deposit at the Hailsham Public Library at the same time.

The Consultation

3. The consultation took the form of public exhibitions and a public meeting. To mark its commencement, an exhibition with 21 display boards was held in the Village Hall on Friday 1 December 2017 between 7pm and 10pm and on Saturday 2 December between 10am and 3pm. Members of the project Team were present throughout to explain the Plan and answer questions.

4. Over the following 2 weeks, 4-16 December 2017, the exhibition boards were available for inspection in the Parish Church of St Peter and St Paul. The Church was open daily between 8.30am to 6pm.

5. Finally, a public meeting was held in the Village Hall on 5 January 2018. The exhibition was re-assembled for this meeting. A presentation was given by David Phillips, Planning Consultant, and other members of the Project Team were present to answer questions.

6. The exhibition boards were displayed on the Parish Council website throughout the consultation period.

Publicity

7. The consultation was publicised in various ways. Advance notification of the timetable and venues of the exhibitions and public meeting was included in the autumn issue of Hellingly Highlights, a community magazine distributed in November 2017 to all homes in the parish. It was also published on 1 December 2017 in the Hailsham Gazette and Sussex Express, the 2 main local newspapers circulating in the area. Details were also posted on Parish Council noticeboards, on the Parish Council and Roebuck Park Residents Association websites and on Facebook.

8. After Christmas, leaflets advertising the exhibition and public meeting on 5 January 2018 were delivered by hand to a large number of homes in the parish and a large banner was displayed outside the Village Hall. Copies of this publicity material are included in Appendix A.

9. In accordance with Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012, notice of the consultation and copies of the Plan and supporting documents were emailed prior to the consultation period to all those bodies whose interests were considered might possibly be affected by the Plan’s proposals. These included the County and District Councils, adjoining parish councils, Natural England, The Environment Agency and the Parochial Church Council.

The Attendance

10. The exhibition held in the Village Hall on 1 and 2 December 2017 was visited by 29 people. It is not known how many looked at the exhibition boards in the Parish Church over the following 2 weeks but several said that they had done so.

11. The exhibition and public meeting held on 5 January 2018 was attended by around 60 people. This was near the capacity of the Hall given the space taken up by the exhibition stands. Notes of the meeting are attached as Appendix B.

12. In addition, a number of parish residents are known to have inspected the plan and exhibition material on the Parish Council website.

The Questionnaire

13. Questionnaires were handed out to those attending the exhibitions and public meeting in the Village Hall and people were asked to complete and return them. Questionnaires were also left in the Parish Church and could be downloaded from the Parish Council website.

14. The questionnaire set out the policies and recommendations in the pre-submission NDP and for each one asked whether or not it was supported and invited the respondent to comment on it, including suggested changes to its wording. A copy of the questionnaire is attached as Appendix C.

The Response

15. A total of 26 questionnaires were completed and returned to the Parish Council. A number of general comments were also received by phone, post or email.

16. The completed returns showed a high level of support for the Plan’s 35 policies and recommendations. 11 of them supported by all 26 respondents, 13 by 25 respondents, 7 by 24 respondents, 3 by 23 respondents and 1 by 22 respondents.

17. The 26 questionnaires together contained 235 separate comments. Another 21 comments were received by other means. All the comments together with the Project Team’s responses are summarised in Appendix D.

Wealden District Council

18. Detailed comments on the draft Plan were received from Wealden District Council’s Head of Planning Policy and Economic Development on 26 January 2018. The District Council’s letter and the Project Team’s response are set out in Appendix E.

Revised Plan

19. Following completion of the consultation and receipt of all the responses, the Project Team reviewed and revised the pre-submission Plan. Numerous alterations were made to the text and the Proposals Map was redrawn. The following paragraphs and Policies have been amended in whole or in part in response to the public responses to the consultation:

Paras: 17-19, 31 47, 48, 70, 105, 106, 108-111, 114, 115, 132, 162, 189, 211 and 232Policies: HNDP1-3 and 6-9, HV1, HV R2, LHB R3, LD R1, RP1, RP R2 and Recommendations on Roads and Transport; Digital Communications; Retail, Employment and Other Services.

20. The revised Plan was reported to the Steering Group on 3 March 2018 for approval and was published on the Parish Council’s website at the same time.

Appendix A

Flyer circulated to all households

Public Meeting

Friday 5th January 2018

Hellingly Village Hall

Doors Open at 7.00 pm to view Exhibition Displays

Meeting to Commence at 7.30 pm

Questionnaires

Your feedback is important. At the meeting there will be questionnaires available to complete or takeaway. If you have already completed one please remember to bring it with you. All

questionnaires should be returned by 26th January 2018 the end date for the consultation period.

Questionnaires are also available on the Parish Council website:

http://www.hellingly-pc.org.uk/council/neighbourhood-plan/plan-documents

http://www.hellingly-pc.org.uk/council/neighbourhood-plan/plan-documents

Press Release

After nearly 2 years of preparation, the Neighbourhood Development Plan for the Parish of Hellingly is about to be revealed.

For an 8-week period from 1 December to 26 January next year, members of the public and other organisations will be invited to comment on the pre-submission draft plan. It can be accessed on the Council’s website at www.hellingly-pc.org.uk. Hard copies of the Plan and supporting documents can also be inspected at Hailsham Library, Western Road, Hailsham.

A public consultation is to be held in Hellingly Village Hall on Friday 1 December between 7 and 9 pm and on Saturday 2 December between 10 am and 3 pm. The exhibition will move to Hellingly Parish Church of St Peter and St Paul from 4 – 16 December. The church is open daily between 8.30 am and 6 pm.

The Plan has 2 key objectives – to protect the rural character of the parish and to retain the separate character and identity of its 4 main settlements. It makes a number of policy proposals and recommendations to this end.

Councillor David White, Chairman of the Parish Council, said: “It has taken a long time to prepare the Plan because of the lengthy period of public involvement and because the new Wealden Local Plan has still to be approved. It addresses concerns expressed by residents which have been ignored for too long. If approved it will help to make Hellingly a better place.”

Jenny HoodlessParish Clerk

http://www.hellingly-pc.org.uk/

Public Notice for 30 November edition

Public Notice

Localism Act 2011

Regulation 14

Hellingly Neighbourhood Development Plan

Comments are invited on the Pre-Submission Neighbourhood Development Plan for Hellingly Parish. Together with the supporting documents, it can be viewed on the Council’s website at www.hellingly-pc.org.uk or in hard copy at the Hailsham Public Library, Western Road, Hailsham. The consultation period extends from 1 December 2017 to 26 January 2018. Comments submitted after that date will not be considered.



Appendix B


Notes of Public Meeting held on Friday 5 January 2018, 7.30pm at the Village Hall, Hellingly

An exhibition of the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) was available for the Public to view. The exhibition detailed the main elements of the NDP and included all the policies and recommendations included within it. The Draft NDP together with Supporting Papers and Topic Papers were also available to view.

The Chairman of the NDP Steering Group chaired the meeting. She started by introducing the Project Team and key Steering Group members.

A short presentation on the NDP was given, followed by a question and answer session.

Question: If the Plan is approved what happens to it if a boundary review takes place and Wealden District Council (WDC) and/or Hellingly Parish disappear?

Answer: This is difficult as it is a hypothetical situation, however the Plan would remain in place until a new Plan is written by whichever authority might replace WDC or the Parish body that replaces Hellingly, and then any new Plan would supersede it.

Question: Would the NDP still be used?

Answer: It would have to be used for development purposes until a new one is in place.

Question: What is the latest position in respect of Ashdown Forest?

Answer: In December WDC published 3 reports on Air Quality. Ashdown Forest is an internationally recognised site of scientific interest and it would need to be shown that any development would not impact upon it. Reports to date have shown that Ashdown Forest is degenerating. Reports have been sent to Natural England for their views on whether the impact of development is so significant that it should not be allowed. The Plan is due to be published in March and we will then be able to see whether WDC have been able to hold their line. Much of the development plans are for the south of Wealden around Hailsham, Hellingly, Stone Cross and Polegate.

Question: You mention not insignificant growth in Hellingly. What would that be, what is the population at the moment and what will it grow to? What area does the Plan actually cover as you talk in one of your documents of Hellingly Parish and Hellingly Ward?

Answer: The Plan is for the Parish of Hellingly. At the start of the process the population was just under 2,000, the figures are constantly being updated as a result of the new development. Wealden’s Issues Options and Recommendations document publish in 2015 was proposing, 4,000 new homes this side of the A22 a significant proportion of which would be in Hellingly Parish, roughly 1,100 to 1,200 houses. All these proposals stalled and the figure of 4,000 has been reduced although 1,100 is still proposed for the Hellingly area.

However, demand for housing is in the North of Wealden rather than the South, we will not know how many houses are being proposed until the publication of the WDC Plan in March.

Question: You have a recommendation about providing 2.8 hectares of play space and about the school will this be superseded by the WDC Plan?

Answer: WDC’s own evidence showed the area was significantly underprovided for and that our recommendation was therefore to require 2.8ha adjacent/adjoining the Hellingly Country Park – to meet this acknowledged shortfall (NPFA standards) as well as to provide a logical extension for future maintenance and management purposes.

We thought that it would be better to enlarge the proposed new school to a 3 form entry rather than having 2 schools competing.

Question: Are there realistic timescales for delivery of the school?

Answer: The developers are due to offer the site to the County Council. The question is who will build and run it? There was a bid by an Academy but this was turned down by the Department for Education on the grounds that there was not sufficient need for a school in Hellingly. The new school has always been identified as a 2 form entry school, East Sussex County Council (ESCC) will be making a decision about the future of the school by the end of the month, they have a number of options upon which to make a decision, including a 3 form entry school.

There is a known need for additional school places from September 2019.

One of the things about putting recommendations to other bodies in the NDP is that it brings them to the attention of the Inspector who may well if they think that it is important raise the issue with the appropriate bodies.

Question: I don’t see much mention of trains in the NDP, is this because there is not enough mass to warrant it?

Answer: I would imagine that the WDC Plan might include something. The scale of growth in Hellingly would not be high enough to suggest reinstatement of rail links.

Question: I am talking about the bigger picture who is looking at that?

Answer: We can only look at Hellingly. WDC will probably be looking at that, their Plan will extend to 2028 which is also the period of the NDP. It may be that there is consideration of moving Polegate station and for the duelling of the A27 the Local Plan cannot address this. When WDC produce their Plan you will be able to comment on it.

Question: Why would you agree to the building of 5 houses in the village which would ruin it?

Answer: We considered and confirmed in our draft NDP that the WDC emerging Plan idea of proposing 30 units in Hellingly Village was contrary to all existing Development Plan Policies, National Guidance and to duties imposed on LPAs regarding listed buildings and Conservation Areas. Our draft NDP therefore also makes no mention of possibly being able to accommodate even 5 units.

Close 8.40

Suzanne CollinsProject Support 8 January 2018

Appendix C

HELLINGLY NEIGHBOURHOOD DEVELOPMENT PRE-SUBMISSION PLAN

Consultation Questionnaire

Please use this questionnaire to feedback any comments that you may have on the Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP). Please return completed questionnaires either to [email protected] or to The Village Hall, North Street, Hellingly, East Sussex, BN24 5PQ, by 26 January 2018.

We welcome your views to enable the Plan to be developed and shaped to best meet local needs/wishes.

mailto:[email protected]

Policy HNDP1 – Area of Locally Valued Landscape

Within the Hellingly Locally Valued Landscape Area as identified on the proposals map the inherent visual qualities and distinctive character of the area will be protected. Development will only be permitted that is not detrimental to the rural character, scenic quality or visual benefit of the area.

Where development proposals have the potential to impact upon the area a landscape assessment will be required to assess the level of impact. Where impacts are identified proposals should incorporate the recommendations of this assessment. Where such impacts cannot be satisfactorily mitigated development will not be permitted.

1. development will not be permitted if it is considered detrimental to the scenic quality or rural character of the area or impacts on the rural setting of public footpaths.

2. development, where appropriate, will be required to show how the character of the area and its biodiversity can be enhanced through provision of additional tree planting and other landscaping measures and ecological improvements.

3. long distance views of the South Downs from public vantage points will be protected from obtrusive developments.

4. developments will be required to demonstrate that lighting proposals are the minimum required for security and or working purposes.

5. the potential for light trespass or glare will be proven to be minimised.

(Core Strategy Policies – WCS13, WCS12. Saved Policies EN8, EN12, EN14, EN17)

Do you support this policy Yes No

Do you have any comments; this can include changes to the wording of the Policy?

Policy HNDP 2 – Local Green Space

Local Green Space as shown on the Proposals Map and used, managed and enjoyed by the local community will be protected from new development. Opportunities for increased enjoyment and accessibility to these spaces will be encouraged and supported.

Planning permission for development which would result in the loss or reduction of an identified Local Green Space will only be granted in the following circumstances:

1. Where it can be demonstrated that the land no longer has any visual, recreational, amenity or ecological value to the community; or

2. An area of equivalent value (size and/or interest) is provided in the locality in compensation.

(Core Strategy SPO11, WCS13 Saved Policies LR1, LR3, LR5)



Policy HNDP 3 – Areas at Risk of Flooding

Within the area identified on the HNDP Proposals Map as an Area at Risk of Flooding development proposals will be resisted unless the proposal has other public benefits that clearly outweigh the risk of flooding to properties or where the risk can be shown to be satisfactorily mitigated.

Where development is considered appropriate the developer shall provide a suitable sustainable drainage scheme that shall meet the requirements of the whole site. In addition, the scheme will need to demonstrate no adverse impacts from flood risk, including of surface water flood risk, on adjoining land. In implementation of an agreed SUDS scheme opportunities should be sought to contribute to locally identified Biodiversity Opportunity Areas and Biodiversity Action Plans.

(Core Strategy SPO9, SPO10, WCS12, WCS14)



Policy HNDP 4

1. To minimise the risk of flooding within Hellingly Flood Risk Assessments for development purposes will be required to assess runoff from the total area of the development site, including from any associated landscaping and not solely from impermeable surfaces. Such assessments will include an assessment of the risk of flooding, including surface water flooding, to adjoining land.

2. There will be a presumption against land raise on development sites in view of the high risk and incidence of surface water and other flooding in Hellingly, including to agricultural land. Where land raise is proposed permission will only be granted where mitigation can be shown to satisfactorily deal with any identified risk. Mitigation will be required to be to the satisfaction of the Local Planning Authority and East Sussex County Council as flood authority.

(Core Strategy SPO9, SPO10, WCS14, Saved Policies EN1, EN4)



Policy HNDP 5 – Green and Blue Infrastructure

Green and blue infrastructure assets as shown on the Proposals Map will be protected and enhanced by ensuring all development proposals :

Are based upon survey work carried out within the last 2 years

Maintain and enhance the integrity of the green and blue infrastructure

On or immediately adjacent to green or blue infrastructure assets clearly demonstrate, through use of up to date ecological information, that proposals will not harm the integrity or function of that feature and the benefits it provides. Where necessary proposals will include the identification of evidence and mitigation measures sufficient to avoid any harm to the green and blue infrastructure.

Clearly demonstrate how the overall function and integrity of the green or blue infrastructure will be enhanced to provide net gains. Proposals should include a management plan to ensure the effective long term implementation and management of those green and or blue infrastructure assets.

(Core Strategy SPO1, WCS12, WCS13, Saved Policies EN12, EN13, EN14, EN15, EN16)



Policy HNDP 6 – Biodiversity

Biodiversity will be protected and enhanced by ensuring development

is informed by up to date ecological information and considers cumulative impacts.

contributes and takes opportunities to improve, enhance, manage and restore biodiversity so that there is a net gain in biodiversity including through the creation of new protected sites and locally relevant habitats and incorporating biodiversity features within developments.

minimises habitat and species fragmentation through appropriate design and maximises opportunities to enhance restore and connect natural habitats to increase coherence and resilience.

of 5 or more houses will be required to produce an ecological management plan that ensures effective long term implementation and management of biodiversity features.

(Core Strategy SPO1, WCS12, WCS13, Saved Policies EN12, EN13, EN14, EN15, EN16



Policy HNDP 7 – Rural Economy

Subject to compliance with other policies in the NDP proposals for the diversification and development of agricultural and other land based rural businesses will be supported. Developments will be required to demonstrate that they are truly sustainable by providing economic, social and environmental benefits locally. In supporting such proposals developments will be required to demonstrate safe and suitable access, high quality design in any new buildings and that the character of the countryside/rural area is not adversely affected.

(Core Strategy SPO1, Saved Policies DC5, DC6, DC7)



Policy HNDP 8 – Isolated New Dwellings

Proposals for isolated new dwellings in the countryside will not be permitted unless the relevant special circumstances set down in the NPPF are met in full together with the criteria below.

1. Where an essential need to live at or near the place of work is argued proposals will need to satisfactorily demonstrate that this need cannot otherwise be met nearby. The essential need to live on the land as opposed to merely the greater convenience of it will be satisfactorily proven. This should include a detailed assessment of the functional needs of the enterprise as well as a financial assessment of the investment and sustainability of the enterprise over the long term. Proposals for any new dwelling should be able to justify the scale of the dwelling when assessed against the nature of and investment on the agricultural or local enterprise.

2. Where proposals for new isolated dwellings are argued on innovative architectural and design grounds (NPPF) proposals will be required to provide a detailed assessment of how they significantly enhance their immediate setting and are sensitive to the defining characteristics of the area.

3. The requirements at HNDP 8 (2) are in addition to meeting the stated NPPF tests regarding outstanding innovative design and architectural standards.

(Core Strategy SPO1, Saved Policies GD2, DO2, EN27)



Policy HNDP 9 – Housing Type

Where the principle of new residential development is appropriate and subject to compliance with other policies in the Development Plan, proposals that provide for a high percentage of homes for the elderly and starter homes/shared ownership (2-3 bed or smaller) will be supported.

(Core Strategy SPO3, Saved Policies HG5)



Policy HV1

New development within Hellingly Village Character Area will be required to clearly demonstrate

a) How it conserves and contributes to the character and appearance of the designated Conservation Area including key views into, through and out of the designated area. Further, how it conserves and contributes to the retention of the character and identity of Hellingly Village.

b) How it protects the historic development pattern of the settlement and avoids unnecessary and inappropriate incursions that detract from this pattern. This should seek to also ensure retention of existing field patterns along with hedgerows and trees along boundaries.

c) Supports the preservation and enhancement of designated heritage assets and their settings.

d) Use of designs that respect traditional and locally distinctive materials including their usage such as plain clay tile for roofing materials and tile hanging.

Unwarranted and unjustified development that erodes the rural character and identity of Hellingly and does not meet the above criteria will be resisted. Where extensions or ancillary buildings are proposed these should also, in addition to the above criteria

e) Clearly be subordinate to the host building and respect the setting of designated assets.

f) Respect traditional and locally distinctive materials. Brickwork should match the bind and pointing of the host building.

g) Where additional car parking or garages are proposed they should be unobtrusive.

(Core Strategy SPO2, Saved Policies EN19, EN20, EN21, EN22, EN27)



Policy HV2 – Specific Design Criteria Hellingly Village

Standard designs should be avoided

Roofs of extensions and ancillary buildings should match the pitch of the host buildings

Front dormers and roof extensions should be resisted

Extensions to existing dwellings should be subordinate to the host building. Overly large extensions will be resisted

New brickwork should match the colour, texture bond and pointing of the host building

Loss of traditional timber doors, canopies and windows will be resisted

Removal of chimney stacks will be resisted

(Core Strategy SPO2, Saved Policies EN19, EN20, EN21, EN22, EN27)



Recommendation 1 – HV R1

In line with National Policy and as a matter of urgency, Wealden District Council be requested to produce a Management Plan for the Hellingly Conservation Area in consultation with local residents, the Parochial Church Council, the Parish and County Council. Such Plan to include the closed churchyard and to produce positive proposals for the preservation and enhancement of the Conservation Area.

Do you support this recommendation Yes No

Do you have any comments; this can include changes to the wording of the recommendation?


Wealden District Council in liaison with East Sussex County Council as Highways Authority produce a traffic management scheme for Hellingly to help alleviate existing problems. Any such scheme to be the subject of public consultation and amendment as necessary prior to implementation.




Wealden District Council be strongly advised that its emerging Plans proposal to accommodate an additional 30 houses within the Hellingly Core Area is inconsistent with its own adopted Development Plan and with National Policy in respect of Conservation Areas and Listed Buildings and the duty placed upon Local Planning Authorities regarding such matters.



Policy LHB1

Where the principle of new development within Lower Horsebridge Character Area is considered appropriate proposals will be required to clearly demonstrate

a) How it supports the preservation and enhancement of designated heritage assets and their settings.

b) Acknowledgement of buildings that make a positive contribution to the settlement and its character and appearance through designation as locally listed buildings and show how the development has no adverse impact upon such buildings.

c) How the proposed development protects the historic development pattern including any important views of the countryside between and beyond buildings.

d) Support for the use of designated areas of land for amenity purposes.

e) That there is no erosion of the sense of openness and rural character of the existing setting of the settlement.

f) How it promotes the use of locally distinctive materials including brick, tile hanging and plain tiled roofs together with use of or retention of traditional windows, doors, porches and shop fronts where they exist.

Where new development is considered acceptable, subject to other policies within the NDP developments shall

g) Ensure they respect the prevailing scale, mass, footprint, materials and appearance of positive and locally distinct buildings.

h) Seek to ensure the retention of field patterns along with hedgerows and trees along boundaries.

(Core Strategy SPO13, Saved Policies EN14, EN18, EN27, LR1)



Policy LHB2 – Specific Design Criteria – Lower Horsebridge


New dwellings should not exceed two storeys in height

Roofs should be pitched to no less than 40 degrees


Extensions to existing dwellings should clearly be subordinate to the host building

As a general principle gaps between existing buildings should be retained and not encroached upon or reduced

Traditional features elements and proportions should be respected

(Core Strategy SPO13, Saved Policies EN18, EN27)



Recommendation 1 – LHB R1

That Wealden District Council does not allocate further land for residential development at North Street, Lower Horsebridge since this can be better accommodated on a more sustainable site elsewhere in the Parish and as an integral part of an existing wider residential development.




Wealden District Council in liaison with East Sussex County Council as Highways Authority seek to produce traffic calming solutions for Lower Horsebridge. In particular these should take into account enhanced provision of facilities at the Lower Horsebridge recreation ground. Any such scheme to be the subject of public consultation and amendment as necessary prior to implementation.




Wealden District Council be advised that the previously submitted application WD/2016/281/MAJ is considered to be a sustainable proposal, providing that the previously offered understanding to donate land to the Parish for leisure/recreation purposes is confirmed, the proposal is strongly supported. Such proposal would meet the Districts own policies and objectives of addressing under provision and enhancement of such facilities.

(Core Strategy SPO11, Saved Policy LR8)



Policy LD1

Where considered acceptable in principle new development within Lower Dicker Character Area will be required to clearly demonstrate

i) How it supports preservation and enhancement of designated heritage assets and their settings.

ii) Acknowledgment of buildings that make a positive contribution to the character of the area and its appearance through designation as locally listed buildings and how their scheme respects and supports these characteristics and does not impact adversely upon them. This includes the Zoar Chapel.

iii) How it protects the historic pattern of development clusters of built form and the important gaps between and view of the countryside between and beyond.

iv) No erosion of the sense of openness and rural character of the settlement.

v) Where new development is considered acceptable, respect for the prevailing scale, mass form materials and appearance of positive and locally distinct buildings.

vi) Use of locally distinctive materials including brick, tile hanging and plain tiled roofs.

vii) That, in the case of modern or contemporary buildings that are acceptable in principle, they respect the prevailing settlement pattern and grain are of high quality and make a positive contribution to the identity of Lower Dicker.

viii) Retention of existing field patterns along with hedgerows and trees along boundaries.

(Core Strategy SPO13, Saved Policies EN14, EN18, EN27)



Policy LD2 – Specific Design Criteria – Lower Dicker


New dwellings should not exceed two storeys in height

Roofs should be pitched to no less than 35-40 degrees


Extensions to existing dwellings should clearly be subordinate to the host building

Gaps between existing buildings should be retained and not encroached upon or reduced

(Core Strategy SPO13, Saved Policies EN18, EN27)



Recommendation 1 – LD R1

That Wealden District Council:

i) Acknowledge the detailed Village Character Assessment for Lower Dicker and the ensuing proposed preferred locations of land to enable delivery of 38,000 sq m of employment land close to the A22 growth corridor

ii) Recognise that this work will best enable the retention of the identity and character of the settlement whilst also delivering their strategic identified employment need

iii) Do not progress the idea of proposing a Development Boundary for Lower Dicker since this is considered unnecessary and would lead to uncertainty in delivery and probable greater adverse impact of development outside of the optimum areas now put forward.




i) That Wealden District Council in liaison with East Sussex County Council seek to accommodate any local waste transfer station requirement north of the A22 thereby releasing the former Dicker Pottery (Shep Plastics) site for residential development.

ii) Seek to encourage and if appropriate allocate the land for such residential use together with indicative design principles to reflect local traditions, styles and materials.




That East Sussex County Council together with those bodies responsible for the monitoring of air pollution levels be requested to increase their efforts in the monitoring of traffic impacts in the area to design and implement solutions to enhance road safety and reduce local air pollution issues. Such schemes to be the subject of widespread consultation prior to their implementation.



Policy RP1

Where the principle of new development within Roebuck Park Character Area and its setting, (as defined in the Proposals Map), is acceptable it will be required to clearly demonstrate:

i) How it supports and does not adversely impact upon the parkland setting of Roebuck Park.

ii) How it supports the provision of local facilities within or adjacent to the retained former hospital building to serve the development given its distance from local services.

iii) That it reflects and retains important open views within and from the development including:

i) views over parklands to the South Downs National Parkii) views to the ancient woodland to the Northiii) views towards the hospital buildings and the churchiv) views from the south towards the parklands and Roebuck Park

iv) How designated heritage assets and non-designated heritage assets including those relating to the former Hellingly Hospital are preserved and protected including their settings.

Development that erodes the sense of openness and rural character of the setting of the development will be resisted.

(Core Strategy SPO2, SPO13, Saved Policies EN17, EN18, EN27)



Policy RP2 – Specific Design Criteria – Roebuck Park

Roofs should be pitched to no less than 45 degrees

Designs of dwellings should be grouped to help reinforce local identity

New dwellings should be no higher than 2 storeys with ‘true attics’

Where new development is considered acceptable it should provide for suitable and appropriate levels of parking ensuring that garages, car parking courts and spaces are unobtrusive. Blocks of garages should be avoided in any additional housing developments. On street parking should be avoided.

(Core Strategy SPO2, SPO13, Saved Policy EN27)



Recommendation 1 – RPR1

That Wealden District Council liaise with and encourage development and other interests as appropriate to bring forward early implementation of the ‘village centre’ focus identified within the Masterplan for Roebuck Park including proposals for a multi purpose community and social use of the former Hellingly Chapel building.



Recommendation 2 – RPR2

That Wealden District Council require the provision of an outdoor playing area for youth and adult recreation of a minimum of 2.8 hectares as a physical extension to Hellingly Country Park to serve the new residential development north of New Road Hellingly and nearby. And further be requested to urgently address the significant under provision of parks and recreational open space identified within the 2017 Wealden Open Space Study for Hellingly and Arlington Parishes and Hailsham Town.



Policy LHA1

All development affecting a non-designated heritage asset (local list) or its setting will be required to clearly demonstrate:

i) How it conserves, preserves, respects and enhances the heritage asset and its setting including through use of design, materials and understanding of the heritage importance of the building or asset

Development proposals requiring the demolition or substantial redevelopment of a local heritage asset will be refused.

Development proposals which seek to support the restoration and conversion/reuse of local heritage assets including for social or community purposes will be supported subject to the setting and character of the building being converted.

(Core Strategy SPO2)



Roads and Transport – Recommendations

That East Sussex County Council as Highways Authority be asked to

i) Provide a comprehensive road design for the area west of the Cuckoo Trail and North of the A271 to provide suitable and safe access to and egress from the present and proposed developments using Park Road and the A271. Such design to discourage and reduce use of Station Road by through traffic and improving traffic calming through Hellingly Village.

ii) To extend speed restrictions (40mph) along the length of the A267 from the Boship roundabout to Wellshurst Golf Club and on the entire length of presently unrestricted C207 (Grove Hill – North Corner – Horebeech Lane from Mill Lane to Horam).



Education – Recommendations

That East Sussex County Council

i) Be requested to progress, as a matter of urgency, development of a new primary school facility on land already identified at Park Road.

ii) Give early consideration and decision as to whether this should be for a 2 or 3 form entry facility given the difficulties experienced at the existing primary school site and avoiding the prospect of a new facility competing with the existing school and thereby potentially affecting the viability of both.

iii) Urgently progress provision of separate and enhanced sixth form and secondary provision at Hailsham Community College in order to adequately address needs arising from new and proposed developments within Hellingly and Hailsham itself.



Sport and Leisure – Recommendations

That Wealden District Council

i) As local Planning Authority ensure that existing significant levels of under provision are urgently addressed including through support for and necessary allocation of land for a strategic sports facility for the growing town of Hailsham and surrounding areas. To use developer contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy receipts to deliver such a facility.

ii) Require the provision of an outdoor playing area of a minimum of 2.8 hectares for adult and youth recreation, as a physical extension to Hellingly Country Park to serve the new residential development north of New Road, Hellingly and nearby.

iii) Bring forward clear and enforceable proposals for the early implementation of sporting, leisure and social facilities as a requirement of its proposed residential developments in the Wealden Plan. Such proposals to be supported by a strategic overview and recommendations for levels, timing and type of provision required to service proposed growth within the Hellingly/Hailsham area.



Digital Communication – Recommendation

That British Telecommunications be required to provide the Governments’ recommended minimum download speed of not less than 10mgs to all properties within the Parish and to improve mobile coverage so as to significantly reduce or eliminate all “notspots” within the Parish.



Retail, Employment and Other Services – Recommendations

i) That the Eastbourne, Hailsham and Seaford Clinical Commissioning Group provide a surgery or healthcare facility as part of the new housing being developed off Park Road or within any community facility/village centre associated with Roebuck Park.

ii) Wealden District Council consider and seek to encourage the provision of local service shops for personal and professional services in association with new development proposed for the parish.



Sewerage – Recommendation

That Wealden District Council as Local Planning Authority be asked to require that all new developments within the parish that are capable of being joined to mains drains to be connected to the main sewers.



Please let us know if you have any other comments or suggestions for additional information or matters that should be included in the Plan.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

Appendix D

Pre-Submission Plan Consultation Questionnaire Responses

Do you support this Policy?Policy/Recommendation Yes % No % Comment ResponseHNDP1 - Area of Locally Valued Landscape

26 100 A sense of openness would only be retained if there is either no or very limited development along the line of Lower Dicker village. Any increases in volumes of traffic would only exasperate an already difficult problem in the area but with no or exceptionally limited resources in the area the use of a car will always be a priority for most members of the local community.

Noted/Agreed. This approach would help retain the character and identity of Lower Dicker.

This is a very worthy policy but it is a crying shame that it was not adhered to in terms of the development alongside the cuckoo trail which is appalling.

Noted support for Policy HNDP1.

Do we need to specify the location of 'public vantage points'?

Noted. Relevant public vantage points will be dependent upon location of proposed developments and assessment of their impact

Should paragraph 5 not read “the potential for light trespass or glare should be minimised.

Noted/Agreed. Amendment to text of Policy wording.

Specific reference should be made to the key landscape characteristics of the area that underpin local distinctiveness, namely the dispersed pattern of historic farmsteads set within smaller fields along the ridges and stream courses and framed by hedgerows and small woods, with the one remaining large woodland block of Ancient Woodland comprising of Park Wood, Nobody’s Wood and Jarvis Wood. It is suggested that reference would be better made to the ‘visual amenities’ rather than ‘visual benefit’. It terms of presentation, the area covered by the policy is not clear from the Proposals Map; also it is not clear why some elements of the policy are numbered and others not.

Noted/Agreed. Amendment to text of Policy wording further clarification in text of boundary of ALVL. Proposals map graphics clarified.

Boundaries of ALVL should be identified in text. Noted. Amendment to text of Policy wording further clarification in text of boundary of ALVL. Proposals map graphics clarified.

HNDP2 - Local Green Space

25 96 Any loss of local green space should be replaced in the locality in compensation

Agreed. Included in Policy HNDP2 in the requirement for replacement of any public open space lost to development.

Do you support this Policy?Policy/Recommendation Yes % No % Comment Response

This policy is one of the most important unless it is enforced this area will become an ugly sprawl of industry and ribbon development, leading to a strain on the infrastructure etc.

Noted/Agreed

Is there enough local green space bearing in mind most of the fields around New Road area will be lost to housing?

Noted/Agreed. See Recommendation RPR2 for additional open space provision.

All this could be open to interpretation as some parts of Hellingly are not deemed visually attractive and therefore everyone’s thoughts are different.

Noted. Draft Policies are based on best available evidence and Topic/Support Papers.

This could have a significant impact on an area like Lower Dicker where the A22 cuts through a linear village and with traffic flowing through it both day and night nobody would say that such a highway would visually enhance the area in anyway.

Noted

Swapping one piece of land for another is an interesting alternative which could also open the floodgates for adhoc development. Where an area like Lower Dicker is not visually attractive or has no recreational, amenity or ecological value to a small community or Hellingly Parish as a whole developers would be quite happy to snap up small pockets of land for development which could over a period of time increase the risk of potential farmland being concreted over and causing even more ecological problems together with even more traffic congestion.

Noted. Lower Dicker currently has no development boundary in the Wealden Plan and restrictive policies apply to new development.

The word 'managed' in line one should be deleted. It does not appear in the NPPF wording and two of the suggested Local Green Spaces (Park Wood and the Festival of Transport Field) are not managed by the local community.

Noted. Park Wood is managed as is the Festival of Transport field but for community use rather than by the local community.

Could we add 'approved by the Parish Council' to item 2?

Noted/Supported. Wealden District Council will be responsible for approving any permissions.

Is “locality” sufficiently precise? Noted. The appropriateness of provision within the locality may depend upon the nature of the facility - some may be required to be replaced nearer to the facility lost than others.

The inclusion of Park Wood as a Local Green Space is strongly supported.

Noted. Strong support for inclusion of Park Wood as Local Green Space noted.


It is demonstrably special to the local community, as evidenced by the use made of it for quiet, informal recreation. The recently established Friends of Park Wood Hellingly, dedicated to maintaining its public access and the conservation and suitable management for its ecological value, already has over 200 members, with many more followers of its Facebook page. It has recently been designated as ‘open access land’.

Noted/Agreed. Clarified with expanded text.

Park Wood’s value as an open space is recognised formally by its designations as Ancient Woodland and as a Local Wildlife Site. It also lies within a Biodiversity Opportunity Area, and includes an Archaeological Notification Area.

Noted/Agreed.

It is clearly close to the community it serves, including growth areas of north Hailsham.

Agreed. Appropriate criteria for description of Park Wood as Local Green Space.

It is a relatively large area, but does not amount to an extensive tract of land in the accepted meaning of the expression in landscape terms. It is well defined and distinct from the wider landscape.

Noted/Agreed.

It is recommended that the policy be amended to give greater regard to encouraging management that enhances the biodiversity and connectivity of green spaces as well as their enjoyment and accessibility. The second sentence should be amended to read:

Noted. Reference to management now included.

Opportunities for increased enjoyment and accessibility to these spaces and, where appropriate, management for biodiversity will be encouraged and supported.

Noted/Agreed. Amendments to text proposed.

Also, while national policy expects similar protections as Green Belts, this needs to be interpreted at the much smaller scale of LGSs, in particular in relation to the erosion of the characteristics that make them locally important. Further, it is considered that they should be regarded as irreplaceable assets, certainly in respect of ancient woodlands; hence, criterion 2 is inappropriate. It is also noted that compensatory provision is not a provision for Green Belts.

Noted/Agreed. Considered to be covered by Policy wording - criteria 2.


Hence, it is recommended that the second part of the policy is amended to read: Planning permission for development which would result in the loss, reduction or erosion of an identified Local Green Space will be strongly resisted and only granted in very special circumstances, such as where it can be demonstrated that the land no longer has any visual, recreational, amenity or ecological value to the community.

Noted. Amendments to Policy wording proposed.

Change size and/or interest in point 2 to size AND interest.

Noted. A smaller area as replacement might exceed value/worth of one lost.

LGSs should be listed in text. Agreed. Proposed Local Green Spaces listed in text.

HNDP3 - Areas at Risk of Flooding

24 92 1 4 Areas at flooding risk should only be developed if there is a sustainable drainage scheme and no adverse impacts on adjoining land

Agreed. Supported by Policy HNDP3.

Essential Noted/AgreedWhat is definition of "satisfactorily" it appears if the developer can show suitable drainage facilities, development can take place on the flood zones. So, what's the point of this Policy being included! But of course it should be included.

Noted. Onus remains on the developer to meet requirements of the Development Plan (Wealden District Plan) and the NDP if successfully adopted.

Full flood assessment should be carried out for Hellingly Parish area to identify present situation and issues and make recommendation. Note: apparently no full assessment has ever been done before for Hellingly.

Noted. See proposals map for Areas at Risk of Flooding, Topic Paper Flooding and wording of Policy HNDP4.

Full professional flood assessment needs to be made for the Hellingly area.

Noted. Requirement to satisfaction of ESCC as flood authority. Professional assessment by developers is expected.

Any building scheme which seeks to circumvent flooding risk by raising all new buildings above the surrounding level must be stopped as it puts surrounding properties at great risk. In addition it is a matter of fact that surface water capacity is already running at maximum along with the mains sewerage system.

Agreed. Please see wording of HNDP4(2).


Does the wording 'suitable sustainable drainage scheme' cover the maintenance, replacement, repair etc. of the drainage scheme in the long term? If not suggest extra wording be added to that effect.

Noted. Suggested addition to wording of text to cover maintenance/repair following adoption by utility providers responsible.

Having lived in Lower Horsebridge for 40 years I have often seen the adverse effects of flooding across the A271 and the filling of fields quickly for small streams. This water has to go somewhere and ultimately to the sea. Continual extra housing does not take this into account. Hedging and ditching is not undertaken as in the past creating further flooding.

Noted. Bodies responsible (SW, ESCC) are consulted on all applications received.

Could we say that soakaway solutions are unlikely to be suitable and any proposal for a soakaway should be supported by soakage tests on the proposed development area?

Noted/Agreed. Covered by Policy HNDP3 but suggest amendments to text of the Plan to clarify.

Given the high groundwater table and risk from fluvial flooding in Hellingly Village and Lower Horsebridge it is important to direct developments to areas of lower risk or where development will not accentuate flood risk elsewhere. Developments that discharge surface water run off should also be required to contribute to the cost incurred by the Water Level Management Board responsible for dealing with the discharge

Noted. The possibility of developer contributions to be considered by Local Authority should permission be granted.

Do not build on the flood plain ever. Noted. Not likely to be supported by an Inspector at examination - appropriate proven mitigation and risk assessment preferred.

Policy should be long-term maintenance SUDS, Agreed. Amendments to text of policy.I do not believe there would ever be a public benefit that would outweigh risk of flooding.

Noted.

HNDP4 24 92 1 4 Given flooding problems in Hellingly no land raise should be permitted

Noted/Agreed. Please see wording of HNDP4(2)

A close eye will have to be kept on WDC and developers on this policy to make sure they don't ride rough-shod over it.

Noted. If successfully adopted the NDP will be part of the Statutory Development Plan and a material consideration in determining planning applications.


What is definition of "satisfactorily" it appears if the developer can show suitable drainage facilities, development can take place on the flood zones. So, what's the point of this Policy being included! But of course it should be included.

Noted. To the satisfaction of those bodies responsible namely Wealden as Local Planning Authority and ESCC as flood authority. Please see also response to 31 above.

Any building scheme which seeks to circumvent flooding risk by raising all new buildings above the surrounding level must be stopped as it puts surrounding properties at great risk. In addition it is a matter of fact that surface water capacity is already running at maximum along with the mains sewerage system.

Noted/Agreed.

Strongly support Noted. Strong support for Policy HNDP4 wording noted.

No land raise. Noted. See Policy HNDP4 Criteria 2 - presumption against land raise unless any identified risk mitigated.

Comma after Hellingly in line 1 Noted. Comma inserted in text.HNDP5 - Green and Blue Infrastructure

26 100 The management plan should be legally enforceable Once adopted the Neighbourhood Plan will form part of the Statutory Development Plan for Hellingly.

There is a confusion of colour on the map illustrating Policies HNDP5 and 6 with one heading entitled green and blue infrastructure and six different colours on the Map - why not cross hatching etc instead of the 6 colours?

Noted/Agreed. Changes to the proposals map will ensure there is no ambiguity between designations of blue/green infrastructure.

To date insufficient regard has been taken of the importance of green and blue infrastructure in the planning process

Noted/Agreed.

Support policy, particularly in terms of seeking net gains, which is consistent with Government thinking.

Noted/Agreed. Strong support for Policy HNDP5. Proposed policy wording requires enhancement and net gain.

It is not entirely clear what the areas are on the Proposals Map. Park Wood is a Local Wildlife Site and falls within the Pevensey and Cuckmere Valley Link BOA, but these are not clear on the Map at present.

Agreed. Graphics on Proposals Map to be clarified.

Review Green Assets shown on proposals map in approved development areas where assets will disappear.

Noted. Such assets should have been considered when planning permissions were granted.

Do you support this Policy?Policy/Recommendation Yes % No % Comment ResponseHNDP6 - Biodiversity 26 100 The plan must be legally enforceable Once adopted the Neighbourhood Plan will

form part of the Statutory Development Plan for Hellingly.

"Up to date ecological information" - should this also be up to 2 years like previous Policy HNDP5? Unfortunately no amount of Biodiversity will save the wildlife/ecological.

Noted/Agreed. Amendments to Policy wording included.

The scale of proposed new buildings will continue to impact considerably on the ecology of the area and so far I have not seen any areas provided by developers to replace lost sites of biodiversity.

Noted/Supported. Please see wording of HNDP6.

Local developments have shown that biodiversity counts for nothing and is given scant regard where developers are concerned. As a local community we discovered nearly 4 years ago where one house once stood 14 units replaced it and despite the fact that we were told, by all concerned, that it would be a sympathetic development and enhance the area nothing could be further from the truth. Once the area involved boasted an extensive wildlife habitat which to this day has still not recovered and is never likely happen as people and wildlife do not mix naturally.

Noted. Comments regarding local loss of biodiversity and concerns raised need urgent attention. Proposed strong interpretation of policies HNDP 5 & 6 are considered necessary to address this loss.

Suggest that biodiversity is also improved in the design of the new houses themselves e.g. by integrating bat and bird boxes in brick that blend with the host wall.

Noted/Agreed. Amendments to Policy wording proposed.

To date insufficient regard has been taken of the importance of biodiversity in the planning process

Noted/Agreed.

5 houses or less should still look to ecological management,

Noted/Agreed. This is considered consistent with National Guidance.

Give some examples in text of what will be sought - e.g. nesting bricks, hedgehog routeways, see and butterfly friendly planting, protection or creation of ponds, retention or replacement of trees and hedges.

Noted/Agreed. Amendments to text of Policy HNDP6 to provide examples.

HNDP7 - Rural Economy 25 96 Does "economic" include employment benefits, don't want neighbourhood to become a dormitory.

Noted. "Economic" would include potential employment benefits of proposals. Provision of jobs as well as homes is considered important.


High quality design' should not include fake chimney stacks and tacked-on 'Tudor' beams! This abominable type of architecture should not be allowed to contaminate the environment.

Noted. Competently prepared Design and Access Statements accompanying planning applications need to justify what is high quality design.

Another worthy policy which stands little or no chance of being strictly adhered to. Judging by the miserable designs of houses being built and the lack of opportunity for local land based rural businesses to be involved this is a non starter. Additionally, as the extremely low turnout by new residents under the age of 55 at the public meeting on January 5th, new local residents do not seem to care about the local area.

Noted. Consultation on the NDP has been extensive and comprehensive. Some are more engaged than others in the process.

Although in principal I support the diversification and development of agricultural and other land based rural businesses, as a community any potential tourism and leisure development must be in keeping with the area and not to the detriment of the local community. Small scale development would be agreeable but local roads in the area are already extremely congested and struggling under the volume of local and holiday traffic plus with the ever increasing lorry traffic it would be a rush hour situation not only during the working week but at weekends as well. Families would then find that access to local facilities very limited and therefore this could harm and already fragile local economy. Small scale developments are much better than a possible large development leading to possibly another Theme park which could or would destroy Wealden’s beautiful countryside.

Noted/Agreed. Please see proposed wording of Policy HNDP7 regarding character of the countryside and no adverse impact of proposals.

Delete truly in line 4 Noted/Agreed. Deletion of word 'truly'.If every piece of well drained countryside/rural land is built on - there will be no green countryside/rural land left except areas that flood. There will be less big trees as they are obstacles -> A267 - Hellingly - Horam. There will be NO countryside left.

Noted/Agreed. Concerns expressed lend support to the need for Policies covering Locally Valued Landscapes.


This makes me very nervous. "Land based rural businesses" could be quad bikes roaring about and a multitude of other things. We have seen farms developed into mini industrial estates, it begins with one application being granted and then gets bigger and bigger. I think the wording of this needs to be more comprehensive in the necessary criteria, but you may feel that "other policies in the NDP" cover this. Noise is a big issue in the countryside. For example we hear considerable noise from Broad Farm, I believe there is a concrete crushing facility there and now something to do with metals as well as the other units. Is the NDP able to address noise issues more generally????

Concerns noted. Please see necessary criteria in this and other proposed Policies.

HNDP8 - Isolated New Dwellings

24 92 This should also apply to barn conversions too. Noted. The NDP does not propose a Policy in respect of conversion of building. The criteria for new residential dwellings would be considered to be different.

We should be aware that planning applications in this area can be made advancing spurious reasoning aimed at circumventing the planning regulations. Wealden Planning should be on continuous alert for such applications.

Noted/Agreed. All Local Planning Authorities should rigorously appraise such proposals as exceptions to usual policies of restraint.

Will all 3 criteria have to be met? As someone who commutes 47 miles each way to work what is the 'maximum distance' that will be the legal norm to prove new residents in isolated dwellings need to live in Hellingly to meet criteria number 1?

Criteria 1 would usually apply to new farm dwellings or a need to live on the land. It is the functional need of the land rather than the distance commuted that is most relevant. Criteria 2 & 3 are usually argued on exceptional or innovative architectural merits of a proposal.

Does this open the door to all sorts of small industrial units opening up, starting up. We have to protect our countryside and starting small is one place to begin.

Noted. Strict criteria proposed in Policy wording to ensure character of the rural area is not adversely affected.


Suggest "will need to be satisfactorily proven". For me this is badly worded and hard to understand. It starts off talking about "dwellings", then about "enterprises" (businesses?) and then back to dwellings. Also talk of "financial investments". Better to have no new developments but as this is presumably not realistic, I would support as much control as possible on new dwellings. Business should be in designated areas.

Noted. The Policy relates to new dwellings but those may be argued as needed to support new farming/land management enterprises.

HNDP9 - Housing Type 23 88 2 8 Specify "high percent" - possibly 30% refuse applications that do not meet this.

Noted. The % will best be determined by the specific requirements and evidence of need from Wealden District Council as Statutory Housing Authority.

Would be good to see the percentages. Overall there seems to be too many starter homes already - thereby producing a degrade factor to existing traditional housing.

Please see response above. Housing needs and types are supported by evidence from the statutory Housing Authority and would be expected to be set down in the Wealden Plan. The NDP does not propose any allocations of land for housing over and above the Wealden Plan.

With an ever increasing number of elderly residents in the Hellingly area large homes could be freed up, for families, if appropriate housing in the form of retirement villages could be built in sufficient numbers and as a matter of priority. Adult Social Care continues to be absolutely essential as this is a category of people exceptionally vulnerable and with the right homes the elderly, who often don’t have any family support and live on a fixed income, can continue to live fully independent and active lives. Homelessness in all age groups appears to be on the increase and therefore there is a real need for some form of residential accommodation to be provided which would be seen as addressing some of the problems of today’s social changes. The pressures of appropriate housing is and will continue to be of concern to Local Authorities and Local Communities alike but if managed properly through effective consultation and planning everyone’s need can be met.

Noted/Agreed. Please see response above.


I find the wording of this policy quite weak. It is imperative that the vast majority of all new housing should be for the elderly and starter homes. In addition people purchasing the starter homes must live there rather than buy to let.

Please see response above. Wealden as Housing Authority is consulted on all major applications to advise on housing needs/type.

Yes - what is more important for homes for those who need to rent is Social Housing - affordable is a misnomer and we have far too many "luxury" homes - not enough suitable for local low paid workers.

Noted/Agreed. The precise requirement (%) for social housing is set down in Wealden District Council's adopted Development Plan.

Not sure what is meant by “high percentage” Would it be better to specify a figure?

Noted. Please see comments regarding consultation input from Wealden as the Housing Authority to best advise on housing mix and type.

Insert in line 4 'with appropriate supporting facilities' and amend supported to 'favoured'.

Noted. The inclusion of wording 'supported facility' not considered appropriate in respect of starter homes.

HV1 25 96 Excellent policy! Strong support for Policy noted.Should the wording of the policy not allow for innovative design where it does not detract from the character of the settlement?

Noted/Agreed. The Policy would not preclude innovative design that conserves and enhances the Conservation Area/settlement.

No cheating allowed! Noted/Agreed. Amend (f) to include reference to matching tiles. Noted/Agreed. Please see reference to

tiling/use of plain clay tiles in Policy HV1(d).HV2 - Specific Design Criteria Hellingly Village

23 88 1 4 Instead of "resisted" - refused, except in very exceptional circumstances

Noted/Agreed. Amendment to Policy wording proposed.

Requirement for chimney stacks is not warranted unless they have a functional role, e.g. ventilation, they only provide a source of leakage and encourage unsightly aerials.

Noted. Generally a functional need would be expected in any successful design.

Tasteful modern architecture should be encouraged to provide an eclectic mix of buildings - trying to keep everything "olde worlde" is ridiculous unimaginative and backwood-looking.

Noted. Modern, justified architectural solutions of quality are not excluded by the proposed Policy.

New tiles on the roof and tile hanging should match the colour, texture etc, of those already on the host building (tiles and tile hanging are both mentioned in the Policies for Lower Horsebridge and Lower Dicker).

Noted/Agreed.


Can we also resist removal of walls/hedges? In submitted applications it is possible to seek retention of walls and hedges. If not allied to any application removal without permission may be possible in some circumstances.

Excellent policy! Strong support for Policy noted.Should the reference to “overly large” not also refer to the size of the building as originally constructed

Noted. A large 'lost' building may be better able to visually accept a large extension. The large size of the original building should not count against it when considering proposals.

Bullet point 5 should refer to matching tiles. Insert new dwellings should not exceed 2 storeys in height (as in Lower Horsebridge).

Noted. Policy reference to matching tiles inserted.

HV R1 26 100 Management plan to be legally enforceable Any Management Plan should set out the reasons and resources for its implementation to ensure delivery of objectives.

The conifers in the churchyard should be reassessed for health and safety because of the cone and needle dropage onto footpaths.

Noted/Agreed. These trees are assessed regularly by the Parish Council.

HV R2 26 100 1 4 Since the new housing developments i.e. Roebuck Park - Park Road the traffic has been using Church Road and Station Road as a "ratrun" usually at speed, = with the Cuckoo Trail - Church, Village Hall - Primary School on this narrow bendy road perhaps ESCC highways should take a serious look and make a firm decision to make the road safer.

Strong support for Recommendation HVR2 noted.

Only a provision that there is no street lighting, traffic bollards, speed bumps, as these will make it like a town not a village. Residents should be consulted before anything is agreed. Consulted and taken note of, ideally the cut through village should be restricted preferably by limiting traffic - one way system or the best solution no access after say the bridge i.e. access one way to the bridge from both ends of Station Road. Oh bliss! No through traffic.

Noted and agreed regarding local consultation on any proposals.


As a dog walker I feel very strongly that serious traffic calming measures, and width restrictions in particular, are needed as a matter of urgency as traffic through the village (in the absence of any train service) will increase exponentially as a result of the new development.

Strong support for Recommendation HVR2 noted.

The road system throughout Hellingly will never be addressed if developers are allowed carte blanche to build houses without putting the appropriate infrastructure in place first. It is well documented that for every home built 2 cars minimum need to be catered for and with the vast numbers of homes required throughout the Hellingly Parish and Wealden District our roads, in their current form, are not fit for purpose. Developers need to put the infrastructure in place first before building houses and if they are not prepared to do this then planning consent should not be granted.

Noted. A requirement for prior provision of all infrastructure before permission is granted is not likely to be supported by the Planning Inspector examining the NDP.

Better management of cars outside of school at arrival and departure. Discourage further the usage of the road to and from Roebuck Park as a ratrun often at times that add to school congestion.

Noted/Agreed.

Cross reference with 'Roads and Transport' - recommendations.

Noted. Cross referencing identified at Para 123 of the Plan in respect of Section 3 - Infrastructure.

It is essential that the volume of traffic that will be generated by new developments is properly assessed and that comprehensive plan for managing the traffic flows across the whole parish is produced by the highway authority with the objective of preventing rat running and of protecting the amenities of existing settlements and residents. Where needed to ameliorate the adverse effects of increased traffic flows alterations to existing roads and junctions and the introduction of traffic calming measures should be undertaken or directed by the highway authority in conjunction with Wealden Council.

Noted/Agreed. Please see also Recommendations for traffic calming measures to be implemented widely within Hellingly.

More houses, more cars - widen roads as new houses built, common sense.

Noted. ESCC as Highways Authority has the opportunity to comment on all planning applications and to consider highway implications of proposals.


Delete help in line 2. Agreed. The word 'help' deleted from HVR2.HV R3 24 92 2 8 The village is already overwhelmed by development Noted. Strong concerns about

overdevelopment of the Parish support the need for an NDP to help manage future pressures for development.

This is a very limited area for any development. Noted/Agreed.I think a small development by a PRIVATE builder would benefit the village and bring new life into the village.

Noted

No new building/houses should be allowed in the Hellingly Conservation area due to its unique setting. The 30 houses can easily be accommodated elsewhere - on the Park Road development where the business/industry park was going to be.

Noted. The NDP confirms that Wealden's emerging proposals for 30 new dwellings in Hellingly village is considered inappropriate.

Need to clarify: is this in addition to the development already taken place at the Martletts pub and Neilsons Nursery?

Noted. Proposed development in the emerging Wealden Plan would be in addition to that allowed at Neilsons Nursery and the Martletts pub.

30 houses is gross overdevelopment of a village with poor vehicle access to a road used extensively for school and access to Roebuck Park. Flooding also needs consideration.

Noted/Agreed. Strong concern mirrored in the NDP.

Plan, policy and duty referred to should be specified (no references given as in other policies).

Noted. Wealden's Development Plan Policies are not referenced in other Recommendations proposed in the NDP.

LHB1 26 100 WDC and developers have already allowed over development - it will require prompt action to prevent further damage.

Noted/Agreed. This view supports production of the NDP to help manage future pressures.

Subject to adequate infrastructure enhancements. NotedA VERY thorough assessment of the flood risks in the area. Surface water drainage - plus the added risk of flooding due to the convergence of three rivers in the immediate area.

Noted/Agreed. See Policies on Flooding HNDP3 and HNDP4.

This is a vital policy - particularly in relation to the parts b, c, and e as these are what make Lower Horsebridge an attractive place to live.

Noted/Agreed. Strong support noted for Policy to retain character and identity of Lower Horsebridge.

The recreation ground and sports pitches are a valued lung for leisure. Housing alongside of these assets cannot be considered desirable.

Noted.


It is important that development in Lower Horsebridge particularly on sites fronting the A271 contain adequate provision for off street parking and for vehicles to enter and leave the developments in forward direction.

Noted/Agreed. The safe parking access and exiting of any site fronting the A271 is strongly supported.

It is also important that potential developers should be asked to demonstrate that the proposed development cannot be located on areas at lower risk of flooding

Noted. Developers will only wish to consider how they can develop their own sites. This role would be for the Local Planning Authority if they wished to refuse permission on grounds of flood risk.

LHB2 - Specific Design Criteria - Lower Horsebridge

26 100 WDC and developers have already allowed over development - it will require prompt action to prevent further damage.

Strong support for design criteria noted to prevent further adverse impacts.

LHB R1 23 88 3 12 This road cannot take extra traffic - main road junctions are already dangerous and congested.

Noted. Please see recommendations re traffic calming.

That kerbs be placed on the "Swallow" business development to be kept to the area granted behind the old Hackhurst units and no further buildings on the field where the access road crosses from A22 - we are semi-rural and any buildings would be too close to existing homes.

Noted

East and West North Street? Noted. The NDP does not support further allocations for development in North Street over and above that already granted by Wealden.

North Street has the best access to major transport links by road and by bus. Also the school, Village Hall, sports field and pubs.

Noted

Not sure where a "more sustainable site elsewhere" might be?

Noted. More sustainable sites are considered to exist in other areas of the Parish.

A vital recommendation to avoid North Street becoming a 'satellite new town' within Lower Horsebridge.

Noted. Strong support for Recommendation LHB R1.

Current completed and accepted plans add to scarce resources of infrastructure and should be considered sufficient.

Noted. Wealden's emerging plan and housing needs will place further pressures on Hellingly Parish.


Should the wording be amended to read “since this can be better accommodated on more sustainable sites elsewhere in the Parish where it can be integrated as part of or be adjacent to existing wider residential development and benefit from improved service connections and greater accessibility”

Noted. This level of detail considered unnecessary for the wording of the Recommendation. Reference to a more sustainable site adequately covers this.

Flood plain problems on old post office side, don't build there.

Noted.

Whilst the current proposals for developing land between North Street and the river Cuckmere are undesirable I feel that we would be wrong to rule out any development along the whole of North Street.

Noted. Some development at North Street already granted permission by Wealden as Local Planning Authority.

Why no reference to drainage problems of site? Noted. Other responses also mention drainage problems on land in North Street. The NDP does not support further development here.

LHB R2 26 100 1 4 Safe road crossing to be included. Noted/AgreedDepends on what traffic calming is proposed. Traffic calming doesn't prevent the use of a road. Perhaps facilities to assist crossing the road would be preferable. Residents' views should be taken into consideration and not just consulted as what usually happens.

Noted/Agreed. Residents views very important in delivering a successful traffic calming/road crossing scheme.

This was included in the original agreement of the development of Hellingly Hospital. Everyone has failed to ensure traffic calming measures were implemented and the residents are still waiting!

Noted. This fact is referred to in the Topic Paper supporting the NDP.

As an owner of a house which regularly vibrates when HGV lorries pass this is a vital recommendation. Traffic calming should be a priority. Additionally air quality needs addressing. As an example I have to regularly remove exhaust 'soot' from all shelves and white goods in my garage which I have never had to do in any previous properties.

Noted. Strong support for traffic calming measures expressed and agreed.

Yes agreed but this is a designated A road and heavily used with considerable build up of traffic at commuting times.

Noted

Should refer to need for pedestrian crossing facilities. Noted. To be considered as part of any traffic calming scheme that may be brought forward.

Do you support this Policy?Policy/Recommendation Yes % No % Comment ResponseLHB R3 22 85 1 4 Cannot find WD/2016/281/MAJ on Wealden District

Council website.Noted. This may be because application WD/2016/281/MAJ was subsequently withdrawn by the developer.

Enhancement or more leisure/recreation facilities very vital for not only new residents but also existing residents.

Noted/Agreed. Strong support for Recommendation LHB R3 to enhance provision of facilities for existing and new residents.

Should the wording read “and that provided that the previous offer to donate land to the Parish for leisure/recreation purposes is confirmed in a unilateral obligation as part of any planning permission, the proposal is strongly supported”.

Noted/Agreed. Text amended to reflect comments.

Whilst enlarging the recreation ground is highly desirable the current proposals for dealing with surface water drainage in application WD/2016/281/MAJ are unacceptable.

Noted/Agreed. Amendments to wording to include reference to drainage issues being satisfactorily resolved.

Line 4 - strongly supported subject to satisfactory resolution of drainage issues.

Noted/Agreed. Please see above re drainage issues.

You have quoted WD/2016/281 MAJ I cannot see this on Wealden Planning do you mean WD/2017/2419/MAJ ? I cannot see parish councils comments on this as page error on website!

On talking to a bowler last summer I was told of proposals to alter Lower Horsebridge recreation ground and that these had already been agreed, so I am glad to see there is to be discussion about it.

Will we be written too as our house backs on to rec?

As the application was withdrawn by the developer this maybe why WD/2016/281 MAJ does not now appear on Wealden's website.

Noted. Any planning application would be subject to Wealden's usual consultation procedures.

Noted. Subject to Wealden's usual consultation procedures on planning applications.

LD1 26 100 A sense of openness would only be retained if there is either no or very limited development along the line of Lower Dicker village. Any increases in volumes of traffic would only exasperate an already difficult problem in the area but with no or exceptionally limited resources in the area the use of a car will always be a priority for most members of the local community.

Noted/Agreed. This approach would help retain the character and identity of Lower Dicker.

Do you support this Policy?Policy/Recommendation Yes % No % Comment ResponseLD2 - Specific Design Criteria - Lower Dicker

25 96 When planning is granted in the local area it is essential that plans are adhered to as often it appears that once permission has been granted any changes to the original plans can and often will be nodded through by the local planning authority and in doing so this often destroys the character of an existing building.

Noted/Agreed. Any proposed amendments to approved applications would still be expected to meet the requirements and Policies of the Development Plan.

LD R1 25 96 I would say that the 38,000sq m employment land along the A22 Lower Dicker corridor is of great concern. There is already the Hackhurst Lane and the new site which is very large. How much more can Lower Dicker take??

Noted. The NDP shares this general concern. Please see proposed wording of Recommendation LDR1.

Any employment growth along the A22 needs to be treated with caution as this road is of continued growing concern and any idea of the Local Authority wanting to shift the problem elsewhere is really not the answer.

With increased development in every town and village throughout the Wealden District and beyond what actually needs to be addressed is the current situation on this road.

To be realistic the traffic will not go away but often it desperately needs calming down. Signs showing the speed limit of 40 mph is not a sufficient deterrent as often lorries, vans, cars and motorbikes choose to ignore the speed limit thus when walking along the pavements the draft from these vehicles can be a terrifying experience as there is a feeling of being pulled along and onto the road.

When trying to use the traffic islands along the A22 it has been found that often the road is not safe to cross into the middle of the road because of speeding traffic or enormous lorries thundering past and it is more often local drivers, being aware of conditions on the road, that allow you to cross safely.

Noted. Please see above.

Noted/Agreed. This strategic approach to the road network and traffic impacts should be addressed by the Local Planning Authority and ESCC in the emerging Wealden Plan.

Noted/Agreed. Please see response above.

Noted/Agreed


Also any planned growth for land off the A22 needs to take into account that often the plot of land involved could be located within a residential area and any increase in car, van or lorry traffic because of business development would only be to the detriment of the environment and the local community.

Noted/Agreed

Is there a typo in paragraph i)? Should it not read “in the ensuing proposed...”

Noted. No amendment to the wording LDR1 considered necessary.

Needs clarification (i) should say 'to enable allocation of sites for 38,000 ….to west of Swallow Business Park'.

Noted/Agreed. Amendments to wording of LDR1(ii) proposed.

LD R2 26 100 Ensure residential development includes social housing for local people - 30% possibly

Noted. Please see 3rd response for HNDP9 and input from Wealden as Statutory Housing Authority.

A much more sensible idea than a waste transfer site. Strong support for consideration of residential use of the former Shep Plastics site noted.

A waste transfer station would not be appropriate on this site as it would be too close to the Zoar Chapel and cemetery plus the Boship Hotel and other residential properties. Residential use would be more appropriate but also there are access issues onto the A22 and with the continued increase in volumes of traffic maybe a residential home or a small retirement development could be considered to be better use of the site as often elderly residents no longer drive or own a car.

Noted. Strong support for possible residential use of the former Shep Plastics site.

It makes more sense to locate any waste transfer station within the proposed employment land designation on the north side of the A22 and away from the resort hotel and the Zoar Chapel

Noted/Agreed.

Lines 2 & 3 - requirement within site allocations proposed in LDR1 thereby releasing….

Noted. In respect of the proposed amendments the NDP is not proposing site allocations by LDR1.

LD R3 25 96 1 4 ?? How is this going to work and keep air pollution to a minimum, if we are to be bombarded by industry - (HGV increased) homes = at least 2 cars per household = public services i.e. buses very poor.

Concerns noted. Appropriate and responsible bodies urged to do more to combat air pollution and undertake appropriate local monitoring.


One question how pollution levels can be reduced bearing in mind the number of new houses proposed for this area. It is going to lead to more vehicles on the road!

Noted. National efforts through incentives and initiative for electric vehicles or alternative fuel vehicles, scrappage schemes and the car industry response to new models are all part of addressing a problem we are all responsible for contributing to.

Road adjoining A22 at Lower Dicker require safer access. Need for traffic lights or roundabout.

Noted

East Sussex County Council needs to be actively encouraged to increase road safety along the A22. Speed cameras could be installed to reduce speed and noise of traffic through Lower Dicker. The cost of this could be met by insuring that the cameras are working and therefore the revenue raised could be used to maintain the equipment and fund the upkeep of the road. Also Coldharbour Road is still a dangerous junction but whilst there are no fatalities at this junction it appears that East Sussex County Council will not do anything to improve access onto the A22.

Noted/Agreed. Reflected in Section 3 of the NDP - Roads and Transport.

Road safety is an essential prerequisite to further development in the area. The local road network is already working near its capacity with delays, accidents, and congestion a regular feature of local journeys. The alarming increase in the KSI incidents on Wealden Roads and its relationship to the increased development in the area should not be ignored

Noted/Agreed.

Last line - subject of public consultation….. Noted. The term 'widespread consultation' covers public consultation.

RP1 25 96 1 4 Preservation and re-use of hospital chapel should be included in proposals

Noted/Agreed. Supported by Policy wording RP1(iv) and Recommendation RPR1.

Parking facilities of any new development should be an improvement to what is existing. Enough (and big enough) parking spaces must be allocated to each property bearing in mind most households have two cars. No parking on the roads would help. Also parking near the Cricket Pavilion should be allocated in that vicinity. Absolutely ridiculous the present set-up.

Noted/Agreed. Supported by Policy wording RP2.


Infrastructure needs to be considered. Noted/AgreedRoebuck Park is too large already and further development should therefore be strongly opposed.

Noted. Please see Policy wording seeking to protect the setting of Roebuck Park. Slight amendment to wording of Policy RP1 to clarify.

There is at present only one access road serving a development of approximately 500 residential properties and the secure health facility. Should it not be a prerequisite for further development that a suitable alternative access road is first provided

Noted. ESCC as Highway Authority is committed upon all applications to assess transport requirements and implications.

Development generally and specifically in this area should also consider the implications of development for the provision of open space, including accessible natural green space, which should be met on site and/or through enhancements to existing provision.

Noted/Agreed. Supported by Policy wording RP2.

RP2 24 92 Define "suitable and appropriate" - 1 bed homes - minimum of 2 off road spaces, 2 bed homes - minimum of 3, 3 bed homes - minimum of 1 garage + 3 spaces, 4 bed homes - minimum of 2 garages + 4 spaces. The provision of parking at Roebuck is far too low and has led to many problems with on street parking.

Noted. Proposed ideas/standards could provide guidance for interpretation of Policy RP2.

Only if development is granted. Roebuck Park is too large already and further development should therefore be strongly opposed.

Noted. Policies within the NDP will help influence new proposed developments being permitted only within the more sustainable locations locally.

There is at present only one access road serving a development of approximately 500 residential properties and the secure health facility. Should it not be a prerequisite for further development that a suitable alternative access road is first provided

Noted. Please see comments above re ESCC Highway Authority.

Whilst I generally support the above I feel that the roads of flats and houses in the development that are more than 2 storeys makes the 3rd bullet point difficult to accept/defend.

Noted/Accepted.

Do you support this Policy?Policy/Recommendation Yes % No % Comment ResponseRP R1 25 96 1 4 It is absolutely essential the former Hellingly Chapel

building is preserved. It could have such a brilliant future. Surely the hard up NHS should sell it? Or rent it out or be encouraged to "gift" it to society. Or will the chapel be allowed to deteriorate to such a degree it is beyond saving - as with the hospital buildings?

Strong support noted for preservation of the former Hellingly Chapel building. See Policy RP1(iv) and Recommendation RPR1.

RP R2 25 96 1 4 Any such facilities should include suitable parking arrangements.

Noted/Agreed

Line 3 - Proposed (not new) residential development

Line 5 - Open space in Hellingly and Arlington Parishes and Hailsham Town identified within…. Study.

Noted/Accepted. Word 'new' replaced by 'proposed'.

Noted. Proposed wording amended/included.

LHA1 26 100 Local list recommendations to be included in Plan and referred to in Policy.

Noted. Appendix of buildings recommended for Local Listing included in the NDP and referred to in text of Policy LHA1.

Other RecommendationsRoads and Transport 24 92 Would be useful to have pavement/footpath on one side

of Station Road with increasing traffic it is dangerous for pedestrians.

Noted. Could form part of any traffic calming measures.

Extend 30mph to all of North Street up to A267. 20mph for all of Station Road. Improve footpaths on Station Road and North Street.

Noted. See above.

Could a child safe footpath between Park Road and Hellingly Church along Station Road be included.


Traffic would be reduced along Station Road during "rush" hours if access to the Boship roundabout from the east was improved. More and more drivers travelling west, south or north use New Road/Park Road/Station Road etc to reach this roundabout.



I have reservations. Drivers do not respect any speed restrictions if it suits them not to. There is no enforcement as they get away with it. No amount of "design" will discourage and reduce the use of Station Road through traffic. It is a perfect cut through. No chicanes or humps will work. The system we have now doesn't work. Personally I don't want to see any more so called traffic calming or road signage. The only way to stop all this through traffic is to prevent it from being a "through" road. Cut it off at say the Bridge so access is only to that point from each end. That will solve the problem full stop! Perfect sense and it will protect the village. The village has its own narrow point which should slow vehicles down but it doesn't! I do think the junction of Park Road/Station Road is dangerous still. to cross the road on foot is tricky as you cannot see vehicles coming down Park Road from Hailsham when crossing into Station Road. when this junction was changed a few years ago, this should have been addressed. In any event, the residents' views must be sought and taken note of.

Any consultation must not be just to appease them. Although inconvenient for us 'locals' the cars parked outside the school does have the effect of slowing the traffic right down. I don't object to that. What I object to is the inconsiderate parking right on the junctions so it is very difficult to see up North Street. That is dangerous parking.

Noted. Agreed that enforcement of any restrictions is important. Further that full public consultation on any traffic calming scheme for Hellingly is critical. Specific solution proposed noted.

Noted/Agreed

Item (ii) is urgently needed. Support for recommendation - Roads and Transport (ii) noted as urgently needed.

i) Roads in the area are totally inadequate for the present population. This needs to be addressed before any more houses are built. ii) This requires urgent attention - both dangerous roads.

Noted support for Road and Transport Recommendations.


This is an essential policy as the traffic increases, in line with the completion of permitted new development, will put an enormous strain on existing infrastructure. The quality of life for all those living on main roads and 'rat runs' will decrease markedly without such infrastructure and traffic calming being put in place.

Noted/Agreed

In order for any improvement to be undertaken on other roads throughout Hellingly, East Sussex County Council should also be asked to reappraise the situation along the A22. The 40mph sign along the A22 is not sufficient to reduce speeding traffic through Lower Dicker and often no thought is spared for the residents living in the area having to put up with the constant noise of the traffic or even at times just trying to cross the road. The A22 continues to have some dangerous crossing points as the road narrows in certain places along its length in Lower Dicker. Speed cameras are needed as this would act a deterrent and possibly quieten down the noise of the traffic. It has been found that the speed camera in Halland works and ensures that the traffic slows right down to the required speed of 30 mph.

Noted. Support for ESCC also reappraising the situation on the A22.

Also speed restrictions around and in the area of Hellingly Primary School (Church Lane and North Street) should be revised and speed limits lowered to at least 20mph.

Noted. This could form part of consultation on an overall traffic calming scheme for Hellingly.

ii) Please, please remember that you have parishioners north of Wellshurst Golf club that also suffer from traffic volume and regular accidents on the A267. The 40mph restriction should therefore extend to the northern boundary of the Parish i.e. Swansbrook Lane. Please amend. Ideally the 40mph should continue to Horam to link with their 40mph restriction.

Noted. This could form part of consultation on an overall traffic calming scheme for Hellingly.


It should be a prerequisite to further development in the Parish that the Highway authority first produce and then ensure the implementation of an holistic plan for the roads in the parish that will serve the new development, that the plan demonstrates how existing settlements will be protected and rat running and cut throughs avoided, that junctions are improved, adequate provision is made for bus stops at safe and appropriate locations that will not disrupt the free flow of traffic and that on road parking is avoided

Noted. ESCC as Highways Authority would be expected to assess and advise on the transport implications of applications and any new development in Hellingly that might be proposed in the emerging Wealden Plan.

Park Road down from 40 to 30mph Noted. Amendments to text of Recommendation.

Add: Park Road and the beginning of Grove Hill to the junction with Mill Lane should be restricted to 30mph. This should be in place before development of land south of New Road is commenced.

Noted. Amendments to text of Recommendation.

Do not support 40mph limit on whole of C207. Noted.Education 24 92 1 4 New primary school and secondary provision to be

started before any new development is approvedNoted. Not possible for the NDP to insist on this whilst acknowledging urgent needs for a new school.

Do not see competition between a new facility and existing primary school given new residential housing in the immediate area, both will be needed.

Noted. Not possible for the NDP to insist on this whilst acknowledging urgent needs for a new school.

The sooner the better Support for Education Recommendations noted.

I thought a primary school was high on the agenda but it appears it isn't. This has to happen. I don't understand the point of travelling one end of Hailsham to another area by car to take children to school. One minute everyone is concerned about pollution levels then it doesn't matter if a school isn't going to be built in an area where there will be hundreds of children. The proposed area is absolutely ideal to prevent travel by car. Everyone could walk to it.

Noted. Agree there is an urgent need for a new primary school in Hellingly. The NDP acknowledges this and requests urgent progress by ESCC as Education Authority.


i) Yes ii) NO - closing the present Hellingly School will not be beneficial to either the children or the wider population of Hellingly. Will Hellingly Village Hall also be closed all to be replaced by housing? I do not want Roebuck Park and the other new developments to become the 'epicentre' of Hellingly. iii) Yes

Three separate responses noted in respect of the Education Recommendations to ESCC.

I strongly believe that East Sussex County Council should take the lead on this and ensure that the existing primary and secondary schools and the new school can cope with the increased demand in school places. New classrooms should be built where necessary - no portacabins. Failure to do this will lead to even more traffic flows in rush hour. Academies/free schools are not the answer. Schools should be properly planned by ESCC.

Noted/Agreed. ESCC has the Statutory duty in this regard and needs to respond to the recent and anticipated developments in the parish in a timely fashion.

The county council should be asked to explain how it intends to safeguard the existing

Primary school, what proposals it has to replace the temporary classrooms, and to repair and maintain the aging buildings and what support will be offered to the school should it not be allowed the opportunity of relocating to the proposed new school site as part of a 3FE facility

Noted. Continuing dialogue with ESCC as Education Authority on the matter of a new school and implications for the existing school.

Review (ii) in light of current proposals. Noted. Continuing dialogue with ESCC as Education Authority on the matter of a new school and implications for the existing school.

Sport and Leisure 25 96 1 4 Make sure any such facility has appropriate parking. Noted/AgreedWealden Council should be asked to ensure that where commuted payment is taken from developers in lieu of onsite provision of adult and youth recreation facilities, the payment is then used to provide suitable facilities within the Parish of Hellingly

Noted/Agreed

(i) where will the sports facility be? Must be in suitable location.

(ii) repeats RPR2 and is unnecessary.

Noted/Agreed. Location not yet known.

Noted. Sport and Leisure recommendations are wider than previous reference to Roebuck Park provision.

Do you support this Policy?Policy/Recommendation Yes % No % Comment ResponseDigital Communication 25 96 1 4 10mgps is very slow: 28mgps should be the minimum Noted. 28mgbs may not be practical.

Broadband is poor at best. Noted/AgreedOverdue and no signs of improvement to date. Noted/AgreedWe have a download speed of 5.4mgs! (BN27 4EG) Upload speed of 0.25mgs. Mobile coverage is very poor and often non existent (O2)

Noted/Agreed

It is ridiculous that all parts of the parish do not benefit from the government recommended minimum download speed for broadband and are not covered by the mobile phone network. If government wants the population to use the digital economy it is fundamental that it provides an adequate net work fit for purpose. Its failure to do so inhibits local business and the rural economy.

Noted/Agreed. Strong support for urgent and better provision of broadband and digital communication within the Parish.

BT - any future providers. 10 mgs (Milligrams?) Noted. Amended text to refer to possible other future providers.

Change British Telecommunications to BT Openreach or other Broadband Infrastructure provider…. Change units to mbps (from mgs). Change mobile coverage to mobile phone coverage.

Noted/Agreed. Please see above.

Yes, I agree with this, but regarding mobile coverage I was not aware that this was anything to do with BT, more the responsibility of the mobile phone companies.

Noted.

Retail, Employment and Other Services

25 96 Healthcare provision and shops to be incorporated in any new housing development.

Noted. Support for Recommendation - Retail, Employment and Other Services.

The return of the Post Office would be a good idea. NotedCould the old New Road nursery site be used, to include a minor injuries unit?

Noted

Presumably the developers have to provide a contribution.

Noted. Where considered appropriate developers can be required to contribute or provide such facilities. Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) receipts will also be collected from developers to help support local infrastructure needs.

We need a village shop and post office ( with adequate parking facilities).

Noted/Agreed. Please see Retail, Employment and Other Services Recommendations.

There is a desperate need for an accessible village shop (unlike Co-op with no proper parking facilities) and most importantly a post office.



Improved health care facilities are vital to cope with increased demands and provide a full service.


Local services and shops are sadly lacking in Lower Dicker. The local petrol station at the Boship Roundabout does have a small shop but this is not suitable for a weekly shop and therefore Hailsham serves as the nearest town where all services and shops can be accessed. With Hailsham struggling to retain its services and shops the likelihood of any further development outside this area will probably be negligible and therefore detrimental to local communities.

Noted

Yes to (i) and No to (ii) Noted(i) delete new in line 2 or insert 'and proposed'. Noted. Amendment to text of

Recommendation.Sewerage 25 96 No new development to be permitted unless can be on

main drainage. Totally wrong in 2018 for housing to have archaic sewerage systems requiring tanks!

Noted. Please see Recommendations on Sewerage. Southern Water consulted on all major schemes.

Is 'capable' sufficient? Joinage to main drains should be a requirement.

Noted. Please see Recommendations on Sewerage. Southern Water consulted on all major schemes.

As long as the actual existing sewers are capable of taking the extra volume. If not new sewers should be installed.

Noted/Agreed

What about plans to connect ALL houses over time? Noted. Please see response below.All houses in Hellingly Parish should be connected to main sewers.

Noted. This could entail unwarranted or unnecessary expense for homeowners if existing arrangements are considered by Southern Water to be acceptable.

As I understand it all main sewers are running at full capacity and sewage is pumped to the Pevensey Levels by pumps which are struggling to cope. Existing infrastructure will not be able to cope and further development is not viable with the existing sewage system.

Noted. Southern Water has confirmed it will have increased capacity available in the near future.

Sewage facilities are already operating above capacity requiring tankers to remove excess. Investment in infrastructure should be part of any further housing permissions.

Noted/Agreed


May be better to say "nearby to" rather than "capable" as a lack of capacity could be cited as a reason when really an upgrade would create capacity.

Noted. Possible amendment to text of Recommendation.

Assuming local treatment plants can cope with the additional load!

Noted. Southern Water has confirmed it will have increased capacity available in the near future.

Other CommentsIn the introduction there is a specific reference to four main settlements: I submit that this is incorrect. There are five main settlements making up the area, the fifth being the developments on Park Road/New Road being built by Bovis, Orbit and Bellway. This latter settlement is the most populous in the area.

The 4 principal settlements reflect those acknowledged as settlements over many years within the Wealden Development Plan. Other areas of development or recent new permissions will be supported by individual requirements of permissions and the wider Policies in the Plan on landscape, flooding, biodiversity etc.

List the name of the Kew Garden architect William Goldring? Noted. Amendment to text - William Goldring.Well presented thank you for the effort put in. Noted/appreciated.Should Horsebridge Mill have some protection for the future? Is it of historic interest? To me yes it is. Should the Chapel at Roebuck Park be listed? Park Farmhouse is very old and listed together with the outbuildings. These outbuildings look like they need repairing/renovating before they deteriorate further. I am concerned about this. Can the owners be encouraged to do something about them. A lot of work has gone into this proposed Neighbourhood Development Plan. I sincerely hope it will have relevance, when adopted, in future planning of this great Parish of ours. Thank you for your efforts and hard work.

Noted. The NDP will include a list of all of those buildings recommended for local listing. Horsebridge Mill will be considered for inclusion.

Significant development has already taken place without the attention given to infrastructure. Why is this? We need to identify the reasons not just keep talking about it. There is inadequate mention in this plan for the need for better road systems and public transport - especially rail. Difficult to see this other than as a narrow vision just for our small area without a reminder to Wealden of the bigger picture. We hear that developers were required to set aside certain sums of money for various infrastructure projects. Some of these projects were never started and the monies never received from developers. We need to see a full analysis if this and more public oversight in the future.

Noted/Agreed. Consideration of the wider infrastructure needs and implications of growth should be addressed in Wealden's emerging Plan and accompanying Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP). Concerned individuals are advised to make their views known by responding to Wealden's Submission Plan later in 2018.

Comment ResponseTransport - Roads - Rural communities have no other means of transport other than car. Before there is any more development priority should be given to the improvement of the local road system. 'A' roads in the whole of East Sussex are appalling. Businesses are being deterred from the area by the poor transport system. Railways - Polegate is the only viable station as Berwick has a very limited service. Polegate station has inadequate parking facilities. Local roads are lined with commuter's cars. NHS - There is an immediate need for more medical centres and dentists. Is there any policing of the area? The identity of Hellingly is becoming fragmented and individual communities are evolving which is very sad. The infrastructure no longer supports or is adequate for the present hugely enlarged population. Measures need to be taken so no more development is undertaken until the necessary facilities have been put in place. Lessons should have been learnt after the building of Roebuck Park!

Noted and Agreed. Prior provision of all infrastructure is not supported by the Planning Inspectorate in considering Planning Policy wording. Generally this is addressed by CIL and central budgets from providers at the earliest opportunity - often only after development has commenced and monies collected.

David White’s paper on infrastructure should be given more prominence as any future growth and development in Hellingly is totally dependent on its infrastructure. Transport links are not mentioned in any great detail throughout this document. Some residents in the Hellingly Parish do not drive or own a car and therefore have to rely solely on Public Transport. There is no train service in Hellingly and the bus service is very limited throughout the Parish. A Sunday bus service is almost non-existent and therefore there is a greater dependency on taxi services during these times which are often very expensive.

Wealden District as a whole is poorly served by Public Transport and if there is to be any substantial growth in the area better transport links need to be a priority and put into place sooner rather than later.

The major town of Hailsham has no train service and therefore there is a much higher dependency on the car to get to either Polegate or Berwick train stations. Increased car usage has created congestion on roads and in towns and villages across Wealden which with an increase in traffic from holiday makers during the summer months could have an impact on future growth planned for the area and as a direct result could end up being very limited. Our roads whether they be the A22 or rural roads or lanes were never designed to take the volume of today’s traffic.

Noted

Noted

Noted/Agreed. There is an acknowledged need for transport improvements in order to support growth.

Nothing is said about the design of new housing incorporating provision for grey water or solar heating systems ……etc.

Noted. Proposed amendments to text to encourage sustainable measures in all new developments.

Piecemeal developments and the large site at Roebuck Park have greatly altered the usage of facilities that were adequate for the centres in Hellingly Parish. Nothing has yet been put back into the infrastructure. There needs to be a joined up plan to ensure a viable environment eventually is achieved.

Noted/Agreed. This would support the need for production of the NDP.

You appear to have covered all matters well. Thank you. Noted and appreciated.Should the plan not comment upon the increasing tendency for new developments to rely upon management companies funded by the residents to maintain shared public facilities. In the past these facilities/areas would have been passed to the local town or parish council to maintain together with a commuted sum to offset costs and would have been maintained by a public accountable body for the benefit of the Parish and its residents. The future on going costs to the estate residents will be in addition to Council tax and will become an increasing financial burden.

Noted. Developer proposals for the appropriate future management and maintenance of shared public facilities are considered by the Local Authority as part of the planning application process.

Comment ResponseOther Comments Received by EmailTo Chair and members of Hellingly Parish Council. We came to the meeting in the Village Hall on Friday 5th January and left feeling very depressed and disenfranchised. We live in Burfield Grange development but looking at the graphics displayed, and listening to the discussion, we felt that as residents we had not been accepted as part of the Hellingly Neighbourhood. The focus seemed to be on Hellingly village, Lower Horsebridge, Lower Dicker and Roebuck Park and nowhere could we see or area included, indeed on the graphics we appeared to be ignored and not yet accepted as residents who both emotionally and financially, through council tax and local spending, support the area. We would value your reply and look forward to hearing from yourselves.

Re Burfield Grange. The 4 principal settlements are those identified as such by Wealden within its Development Plan over many year. It is acknowledged other areas/centres of development exist. Some as very recently granted permissions now being developed out. These benefit from the precise conditions and elements of planning permissions and legal agreements. All areas and residents of the Parish are supported by and benefit from those Policies covering such matters as landscape protection, flood risk, public open/green space and biodiversity. Some of the area of growth now present were not even subject of planning permissions when the 4 principal settlements of the Parish were identified.

Dear Jenny. I wish to outline my strong objection to the exclusion of the New Road settlement and its associated dwellings (linked to the nursing home and mobile home park) from the list of the main settlements (I left a telephone message regarding this when the leaflet came through my letterbox). We were here before the Roebuck Park settlement and have been excluded time and again from any consideration concerning the positive development of the Parish. We are bearing the brunt of the increased housing and industry and the considerable increase in traffic that entails, together with the increased traffic flow through our area and on through the village every day. We are a significant part of this Parish and deserve equal consideration in the proposals, particularly with reference to the traffic situation that we are experiencing. It seems that we are not part of the so-called 'rural' aspect of the Parish and more and have been 'written off' in that regard. Please forward my views to the Parish Council and the Neighbourhood Development committee.

Noted. Please see response above. Not all area of recent residential development can realistically be regarded as a principal settlement of the Parish.

Thanks for this Public Meeting info. Unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the meeting yesterday, even though I had a question to ask! Perhaps you could satisfy my curiosity? There are several mentions of the Primary School being moved to land off Park Road, but it doesn't appear to say anywhere where that land is. Do you know if it's the field which is north east of New Road/Park Road junction?

Query re site of new school response needed.

Comment ResponseFirstly a big "thank you" to you and your colleagues for organising the meeting on Friday and for all the hard work done in producing this draft NDP-much appreciated! I thought the meeting was very well behaved and some useful additional points of interest arose. Overall I think the draft NDP plan is fairly well balanced and is a good reflection of residents views and wishes. The backdrop, of course, is that we are told "we must" support the Wealden plan for housing growth but we can via the NDP try to influence the nature, size and locality of that growth for Hellingly. I will be returning the questionnaire with any additional comments in the next few days. I do have a couple more questions which are of a more delicate nature and which I thought inappropriate to raise on Friday.

1. On your website the membership of the Steering Group appears to be different from that shown on the draft plan. For instance B Dashwood-Morris is shown as Chairman on your website but the draft plan indicates D Aldridge. It may be that Dashwood-Morris has quite properly "resigned" from the Steering Group entirely following her own breach of planning laws in respect of her Hellingly Grade II listed property. Clarity on this subject would be appreciated.

2. I note the voluminous amount of background reports and documentation supporting the NDP and the hours of work that must have gone into producing the draft plan. Whilst I very much admire the thoroughness and attention to detail. I know this must have come at a cost. In the interests of transparency, would the Council be able to disclose how much has been spent to date, and on what and is the spend on budget? It would be interesting to see how much has been paid to consultants for instance. Presumably the Steering Group and Project Group all give their time free" (very commendable) with the exception of David Phillips who is presumably paid as a consultant?

3. Looking through the Statement of Community Involvement I was rather hoping to see the experience and background profiles of the members of both the Steering Group and Project Team but Appendix B is rather silent on this subject, except for the qualifications and experience of Suzanne Collins. Nor is there very much on the website that I can see in this regard. Some are just shown as "residents". It would be very helpful if the profiles could be added in the interests of transparency so we can see the appropriateness and experience of the members together with any links to other organisations and business interests for instance D Aldridge mentioned at the meeting that she was currently Chair of Hellingly School Governors.

4. At the meeting on Friday I did enquire about the current population of Hellingly Parish. I asked this because Topic Paper No 1 (Parish Profile) the number given is 7,158 but this was for 2014 and much development has happened since then. In the same document the persons currently on the electoral role for Hellingly Parish are shown as only 1,964 which is a very big difference from the 7,158 even allowing for persons under age and those who have opted out. I think David mentioned a current population figure of 1,100 but I probably misheard. If you could supply the current population figure (or approximates) for Hellingly Parish, that would be appreciated. I apologise if I have misread or wrongly interpreted any data in your reports.

Noted and supportive comments appreciated.

Number of Questionnaire Responses 26

Appendix ELetter from Wealden District Council

OUR REF: Neighbourhood PlanningASK FOR: Planning Policy – 01892 602008DATE: 26 January 2018YOUR REF:

Hellingly Parish Council Marina BrigginshawBy email Head of Planning PolicyDear Hellingly Parish Council,

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft Hellingly Neighbourhood Plan. Wealden District Council has been working with Hellingly Parish Council with regard to the preparation of the Neighbourhood Plan and whilst Wealden District Council supports in principle the Hellingly Neighbourhood Plan, the District Council would also wish to identify some further detailed comments to be taken into account in progressing the plan further. These comments are set out below.

Statutory requirements for the consultation

Regulation 14 of the Neighbourhood Planning (General) Regulations 2012 sets out the requirements for consultation and publicity for a draft neighbourhood plan.

Before submitting a plan proposal to the local planning authority, a qualifying body must;

(a) publicise, in a manner that is likely to bring it to the attention of people who live, work or carry on business in the neighbourhood area—(i) details of the proposals for a neighbourhood development plan;

(ii) details of where and when the proposals for a neighbourhood development plan may be inspected;

(iii) details of how to make representations; and

(iv)the date by which those representations must be received, being not less than 6 weeks from the date on which the draft proposal is first publicised;

(b) consult any consultation body referred to in paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 whose interests the qualifying body considers may be affected by the proposals for a neighbourhood development plan; and

(c) send a copy of the proposals for a neighbourhood development plan to the local planning authority.

It has come to our attention that not all consultation bodies may have been contacted. We would therefore welcome the parish council confirming that these requirements have been undertaken, especially with regard to paragraph (b) relating to consultation bodies. If this element has not been undertaken then a further stage of consultation would be required to enable these consultees the opportunity to comment on the draft plan before it moves forward in its preparation.

Requirement to undertake SEA/HRA screening of the draft Neighbourhood Plan

We note that this draft Neighbourhood Development Plan has not been subject to a Habitats Regulations Assessment (HRA)1 / Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)2

screening and consultation with relevant bodies prior to the Regulation 14 consultation being undertaken. This was contrary to the advice of Wealden District Council. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) is clear that a screening assessment should be undertaken at an early stage to ascertain whether the Plan will trigger any EU directives or Habitat directives. Without undertaking the SEA/HRA screening process and required consultation we are unable to comment with certainty on whether the draft plan will require a SEA or HRA. However, if an SEA or HRA is found to be required, the gathering of evidence for its preparation must be integrated into the process of producing the Neighbourhood Plan and should be consulted on as part of the Regulation 14 consultation. As a result there may be a requirement to undertake a further stage of Regulation 14 consultation should an SEA be required.

For clarity SEA/ HRA is in the process of being finalised and will be sent to statutory consultees shortly. We are expecting comments to be received within the statutory six week timescale.

Potential Impacts on European Sites 3

In the absence of a screening under the HRA, whilst considering the content of the Plan consideration was given to the potential implications under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017. Both the policies and recommendations have a potential to have a likely significant effect on Pevensey Levels SAC and Ramsar Site, Ashdown Forest SAC and Lewes Downs SAC. In this regard, and in the absence of a relevant policy within an adopted Local Plan, it is considered necessary to include a policy that ensures that the regulations are met and that the policies/ recommendations do not result in a likely significant effect on any relevant designated site. More information is contained within the screening response and the emerging Wealden Local Plan in this regard. In terms of the specific wording of the policy, we would wish to work with relevant parties in order to draft an appropriate policy.

General conformity with the strategic policies of the development plan

To meet the basic conditions a Neighbourhood Development Plan should be in general conformity with the strategic policies in the development plan. The current development plan consists of the Core Strategy Local Plan 2013, the 1998 Wealden Local Plan (saved policies) and the Affordable Housing Delivery Local Plan 2016. Waste and Minerals Local Plans adopted by East Sussex County Council are also relevant in this regard. The emerging Wealden Local Plan (March 2017) (WLP) and its associated evidence base provides up to date evidence and context for the neighbourhood plan and in accordance with the National Planning Practice Guidance may be relevant to the consideration of the

1 Under the Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2017 and Habitats Directive2 Under the Environmental Assessment of Plans and Programmes Regulations 2004 and Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive3 Paragraph 118 of the NPPF confirms that the following wildlife sites should be given the same protection as European sites:- potential SPAs and possible SACs;- listed or proposed Ramsar sites; and- sites identified, or required, as compensatory measures for adverse effects on European sites, potential SPAs, possible SACs, and listed or proposed Ramsar sites.

basic conditions against which a neighbourhood plan is tested. However, the examiner cannot consider the Neighbourhood Plan against the emerging WLP polices. This is because the relevant basic condition is the Neighbourhood Plans general conformity with the strategic policies of the adopted statutory development plan for the area.

It is noted that there are a number of recommendations throughout the Section 2 and 3 of the Plan. These recommendations mainly relate to the delivery of infrastructure and representations regarding the content of the emerging Wealden Local Plan. Concern is raised that these recommendations, and in particular, those relating to the emerging Wealden Local Plan will be considered as policy for decision making purposes if their intention is not made clear. In this regard, it is suggested that recommendations are placed in an appendix or separate chapter and it is clearly identified that they do not form policy.

We therefore request that all recommendations are clarified, in terms of their status, to ensure that basic conditions are met and in particular:

Hellingly Village – Recommendation HVR3 refers to the Core Area and proposals for an additional 30 houses.

Lower Horsebridge – Recommendation LHBR1 recommends that WDC does not allocate further land for residential development at North Street since this can be better accommodated on a more sustainable site elsewhere in the Parish and as an integral part of an existing wider residential development.

Lower Horsebridge - Recommendation LHBR3 – recommends that a previously submitted application (WD/2016/281/MAJ) is considered to be a sustainable proposal, providing that the previously offered understanding to donate land to the Parish for leisure/recreation purposes is confirmed, the proposal is strongly supported.

Lower Dicker – Recommendation LDR1 refers to 38,000 sqm. of employment land and the A22 growth corridor and not to progress the idea of proposing a Development Boundary for Lower Dicker since this is considered unnecessary and would lead to uncertainty in delivery and probable greater adverse impact of development outside of the optimum areas now put forward.

Lower Dicker – Recommendation LDR2 seeks to accommodate any local waste transfer station requirement north of the A22 thereby releasing the former Dicker Pottery (Shep Plastics) site for residential development

Roebuck Park – Recommendation RPR2 refers to the provision of an outdoor playing area for youth and adult recreation of a minimum of 2.8 hectares as a physical extension to Hellingly Country Park to serve the new residential development north of New Road Hellingly and nearby. In addition, there are references to the Core Strategy 2013 and 1998 Wealden Local Plan saved policies in the policy boxes throughout the plan. We recommend that further explanation of these references are made within the supporting text to make it clear how each policy is in conformity with the development plan.

Comments with regard to specific policies within the draft plan

The comments below are in addition to the general comments made above relating to references to the emerging Wealden Local Plan. The comments below also relate to the basic condition of having regard to national policies and advice contained in guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

Section 1 – Protection of the Rural Character of the Area

Policy HNDP1 – Area of Locally Valued Landscape. It is difficult to determine from the Proposals Map the Area of Local Landscape Value and how the policy relates to any of the Council’s evidence base. However it is noted that the policy seeks to protect the scenic quality rural character of the area and prevents development that is considered detrimental in these regards. As the policy provides circumstances where development is not permitted it is necessary to explain why a local non- designated area has this level of protection. In this regard it is necessary to meet the requirements of paragraph 113 of the NPPF in terms of the hierarchy of designation and the level of protection is afforded to locally designated landscape sites. It is considered that this policy exceeds the level of protection of the NPPF, the adopted Wealden Core Strategy and the adopted Wealden Local Plan.

Policy HNDP2 – Local Green Space. This policy seeks to protect the areas within the parish which have a local value and a list of six sites plus various sites in Lower Dicker have been identified in paragraph 27 of the draft plan. Paragraph 77 of the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) sets out conditions for land to be identified as local green space. We recommended that additional explanation is set out, either in the draft plan or background document, showing how each area complies with paragraph 77. In additional reference is made to Park Wood, Hellingly in paragraph 27 of the draft report being a local green space. We understand that this has been recently designated as an Asset of Community Value and this could be added to the supporting text for clarity. The policy indicates that these areas are shown on the Proposals Map however they do not appear to be mapped.

Policy HNDP 3 & 4 – Areas at Risk of Flooding. This policy identifies within the parish areas at risk of flooding which is drawn on the supporting proposals map. Wealden District Council undertook a Level 1 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment which was published in July 2017 and the flood zone does not appear to coincide with this evidence base and therefore may be considered to be overly restrictive in the absence of evidence. In addition, the policy within the text does not appear to meet the provisions of the sequential or exceptions test as provided in national policy. The parish council may also wish to consider that by drawing such a boundary on the proposals map may be restrictive and subject to change when further flood risk assessments are undertaken which may render the policy unworkable and require revision in the future.

Policy HNDP5 – Green and Blue Infrastructure & Policy HNDP6 Biodiversity. These policies seek to protect and enhance the parish’s green and blue infrastructure and preserve and promote the biodiversity of certain areas. A number of designated and non-designated areas are outlined within the text including Local Wildlife Sites, Ancient Woodland and Biodiversity Opportunity Areas. The policy seeks to protect the feature by requiring that development will not harm the integrity or function of the feature and the benefits that apply. In this regard the NPPF needs to be considered further in relation to the hierarchy of designated and non-designated sites and the level of protection afforded.

In addition, Bullet point 4 of Policy HNDP6 sets out a requirement of ‘5 or more houses will be required to produce an ecological management plan that ensures effective long term implementation and management of biodiversity features’. It is unclear what the justification is for the use of this threshold and for clarity we suggest that justification for this threshold is set out in either the supporting text in the draft plan or the supporting topic paper.

Policy HNDP 7 – Rural Economy. This policy supports proposals for the diversification and development of agricultural and other land based rural businesses subject to criteria set out in the policy which refers to ‘high quality design in any new buildings’. It is recommended that this be amended to comply with paragraph 28 of the National Planning Policy Framework to say ‘well designed’.

Policy HNDP 8 – Isolated new Dwellings. It is noted that the policy provide additional criteria to the NPPF in relation to isolated dwellings proposed in innovative architectural and design grounds. Guidance states that a neighbourhood plan must not constrain the delivery of important national policy objectives. It will therefore be necessary to show how this policy, through the provision of additional criteria contained within the NPPF, does not constrain the delivery of national policy.

Policy HNDP9 – Housing Type. This policy supports the provision of homes for the elderly and starter homes/shared ownership in new developments. Paragraph 50 of the National Planning Policy Framework supports the delivery of a wide choice of high quality homes and the creation of sustainable, inclusive and mixed communities. This policy seeks to support that aim by reflecting trends, needs and local demand providing evidence to show the housing mix is supported by local opinion however we would recommend that additional wording is added to the policy to take into account viability considerations.

Section 2 – Retention of the separate character and identity of the four main settlements

This section of the draft plan introduces policies and recommendation boxes. The inclusion of recommendation boxes are commented upon elsewhere in this document.

Design policies

Each settlement within Section 2 of the draft plan sets out design polices which set outrequirements for new development coming forward in each settlement. We would recommended that the design polices are checked against the current General Permitted Development Order 2015 (as amended) to ensure that they align with each other to ensure they can be applied once the plan is adopted.

Section 3 – Infrastructure

The same comments apply with regard to the recommendation boxes in this section as for those in section 2.

Proposals Map

A proposals map supports the draft plan which identifies areas of protection, particular land uses and sets out the areas to which specific policies in the draft plan apply. The proposals map supporting the plan can only be viewed with accuracy if you view it

electronically via the zoom function. It would be helpful to have smaller maps showing each village area together with individual maps showing each designation, for example the local green spaces. This would make the map clearer and align with the policies in the plan. Currently, where designations overlap the colour changes and this could be confusing to the reader.

It would also be helpful if further context of the surrounding area beyond the parish boundary was provided to enable the map to be better orientated for the reader. It is unclear whether designations go beyond the parish boundary, for example the flood area and the area of local wildlife value.

The map identifies the Hailsham Development Boundary as a black dash and dot line. If it is the emerging town centre boundary then this is provided ahead of the Wealden Local Plan being adopted and should be removed or heavily caveated to say that it is a draft boundary and is potentially subject to change.

We welcome the opportunity to discuss the above comments once the HRA screening process has been completed.

Yours sincerely

Marina BrigginshawHead of Planning Policy and Economic Development

Wealden District Council, Vicarage Lane, Hailsham, East Sussex BN27 2AXT 01323 443500 F 01323 443146E [email protected] W www.wealden.gov.uk

THE PARISH COUNCIL OF HELLINGLYThe Village Hall, North Street, Hellingly, East Sussex, BN27 4DS

Tel: 01323 449415e-mail: [email protected]: www.hellingly-pc.org.uk

19 February 2018

Ms M BrigginshawWealden District CouncilVicarage LaneHailshamEast Sussex.BN27 2AX

Dear Marina,


Thank you for your email of 26 January. Your comments and suggestions were most helpful.

We are in the process of revising the draft Plan in the light of responses to the recent public consultation and your letter. We will of course let you see the revised version as soon as it is completed.

In the meantime, perhaps I could make the following initial response to your letter addressing your comments in the order in which they appeared.

Statutory Requirements for Consultation

The Project Team carefully considered Schedule 1 of the Neighbourhood Planning Regulations. Prior to its commencement, notification of the consultation and copies of the Plan and supporting documents were emailed to all those bodies whose interests were considered to be affected by the Plan’s proposals. These included the County Council, all adjoining parish councils, Natural England, the Environment Agency, Southern Water and the Parochial Church Council. We were therefore surprised by your statement that not all consultation bodies may have been contacted. Could you please let us know who you think that we failed to contact?

Screening of Draft Plan

The risk that a further stage of Regulation 14 consultation would need to be undertaken if an SEA is required has been understood and accepted throughout.


mailto:[email protected]

Impact on European Sites

We would be pleased to include an assurance that the Plan will not result in a significant effect on any relevant designated site (we do not believe it will). Your advice on its wording would be much appreciated.

Conformity with Development Plan

The revised Plan will clarify the status of its recommendations and make it clear that they do not form policy.

HNDP 1 – Area of Locally Valued Landscape

It is not clear to us exactly what your concern is. Several adopted Neighbourhood Development Plans have included such a designation. Policies 1-5 are intended to explain what the designation entails. If the words ‘will not be permitted’ are the problem, these could be rephrased. Could you advise us further on this point?

HNDP 2 – Local Green Space

The text of the revised Plan will be amplified to explain how each area complies with para. 77 of the NPPF. The proposed areas were shown on the Proposals Map but unfortunately without a key – this will be rectified.

HNDP 3&4 – Areas at Risk of Flooding

Thank you for drawing our attention to the Level 1 SFRA which we have now reviewed. We shall need to update our flooding topic paper to take account of its content, and also to make it clearer that our "Flooding" map does not represent just the area at risk of flooding, but rather the area where development should be restricted in order to allow the proper management of surface water in the future. Paragraph 4.5 of the SFRA calls for a "managed adaptive approach - setting development away from a river so it is easier to improve flood defences in the future" and this is the intention with our approach to flood risk.

The SFRA draws attention to flooding from sewers (6.7.1) and the use of SuDS within developments to enhance ecological and amenity factors (9.4). In the future there may be a wish to remove surface water from the sewer network in order to alleviate sewer flooding problems, by separating surface water from the foul network and creating managed surface water treatment areas. These would be most suited to the locations adjacent to rivers. Figure 12-1 in the SFRA places virtually the whole of the Hellingly Parish in an "Area of Concern" for flood risk from groundwater, so the management of surface water run-off and groundwater in this area may need to be a far more prominent feature of future Local Plans.

We accept that the updated Flood Map for Surface Water does not match our mapping – our boundary is drawn at approximately 20m AOD according to the Ordnance Survey mapping for the area. This allows sufficient head above flooding levels for future surface water management facilities to be added.

HNDP 6 – Biodiversity

We feel that the wording of Policies HNDP 5 and 6 simply reflects and clarifies para. 109 of the NPPF. The threshold for an ecological management plan will be changed from 5 to 10 houses.

HNDP 7 – Rural Economy

The revised text will include the words “well designed”.

HNDP 8 – Isolated New Dwellings

The text will be amended to make it clear that the policy is a clarification of the NPPF and not additional to it.

HNDP 9 – Housing Type

The revised text will include reference to viability considerations.

Design Policies

The wording will be amended to clarify that the policies apply where planning permission is required.

Proposals Map

We are very aware that more work needs to be done on the Proposals Map which is far from satisfactory in its present state. Smaller village maps will be included in the Plan. A context map showing Hellingly Parish in relation to its surrounding area will also be included. The Hailsham Development Boundary will be described as a draft boundary subject to change.

May I say in conclusion that we value your comments and suggestions particularly in ensuring that in our desire to reflect community aspirations we do not trespass beyond the bounds of what is legally permissible.

Yours sincerely


neighbourhood development plan€¦ · web viewover the following 2 weeks, 4-16 december 2017,...

Documents