Page 150 - MJC submissions

Paragraph 4
Objectively Assessed Need

3. The MSDC Strategic Market Assessment Update of October 2012 states:

“the overall effect (of providing housing in excess of local demand) is to reinforce
unsustainable patterns of commuting and ready access to services”

4. The Steering Group produced two Sustainability Reports, dated September and December
2015. They concluded that – up to 2031- there was an Objectively Assessed Need
27
(OAN) in Ashurst Wood for 62 new dwellings.
28
5. The evaluation noted that there were 27 qualifying households on the council house
waiting list; only 8 of which put the parish as their first choice.

There is not, as stated in the application, an “overwhelming demand” for accommodation in the
area, let alone village.
6. Ashurst Wood is not required to compensate for housing shortfalls in other parts of the
district, although it is likely that any over-development would relieve the political
pressures on towns and villages with deficiencies such as Ashbourne, Ardingly, Balcombe
and Sayers Common. Ashurst Wood already has a far high DdHa than any other category
3 village. Yesterday I read the excellent documentation recently submitted by Slaugham
Parish Council planning for 5,500 new homes. I don’t see any shortage of sites in the
County.

7. The AWVC Sustainability Reports note:
“…..there is a limit to the number that is compatible with the environmental,
economic and social objectives of the Neighbourhood Plan and a large number of
new homes would be unsustainable. Residents wish to protect the rural character of
the village”.

1.17 Sites Evaluated
8. The Steering Group evaluated 16 sites (See attachment 7) with a potential capacity of over
120 dwellings. Additionally, MSDC through its SHLAA program, proposed six sites with
29
a potential capacity of 139 dwellings. Thus, there was more than sufficient land available
to satiate the village’s OAN without any need to convert the Wealden House sites into a
ghetto.
9. There is no evidence that the WH:LIC site (of an estimated 0.54 hectares) was properly
evaluated or why it was included in the AW Neighbourhood Plan: it seems to have just
appeared.

10. Villagers were canvassed for their views on potential development sites and the results of
two referenda are shown in columns 10 to 12 of Attachment 9. The current application
states that development of the WH sites was by far the most popular with villagers.

11. This is unsurprising because:
• There was an overwhelming NIMBY bias in favour of developments away from the
30
village centre and to the north and west of the A22 (such as WH, Spinney Hills and
Willow Trees: the plan at Attachment 13 confirms this bias;

• The vote engaged just 5% of the 1,800 residents;
However, the villagers believed that the undertaking to provide 62 new homes– up to
2031 - was excessive and that a limit of 18 was more realistic.

Page | 13