Page 42 - MJC submissions
P. 42

STEPS TOWARDS AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
                                                      And stipulations


               7.9 Comments of Key Elements: Infrastructure (Continued)
               For example, the development of 71 flats is estimated to result in a demand for only seven
               school places and 92 parking spaces are offset by a payment for only 28 .
                                                                                     44
               The bottom line is that a one-off payment of £246,267 will not compensate for additional
               infrastructure demands. The funds are to be used for:                                       Page | 32

                      Seven school places. Based on a “child products” such as “0.4627” “and total places”
                       required of “3.2389”;

                      Improvements to libraries in East Grinstead and Haywards Heath;

                      A cycle path along the A22 towards East Grinstead ;
                                                                       45
                      Safety improvements at the School Lane and Maypole Lane junction;

                      Traffic calming within the village of Ashurst Wood;

                      Sustainable traffic.

               It appears that planners are fixated on esoteric, formulaic, four decimal solutions as a
               substitute for reality.

                       Section 106 payments are proposed as a solution to infrastructure overloads: they
                       favour the developer and put long-term burdens on the village.

               Extrapolation of census figures – for families with children, numbers of children per family
               and other demographics – indicate that a development of 71 flats (50 two bedroomed) will
               be homes to 40 children, half of whom will be of school age. Seven additional school places
               will be inadequate.

               Massing, traffic flows, parking and design in the application are based on the fallacy that the
               EDF building – misrepresented as “existing” is the baseline.
                       The 64 parking spaces  should be classed as “notional” while the 92 in the proposed
                                            46
                       development “hub”. Thus, there is a persuasive case that the section 106 payment for
                       parking spaces should be for 92 and not 28.

               If the development were to go ahead the section 106 payments would be used much more
               effectively for:

                      Upgrading sewage and waste disposal facilities and resurfacing Luxford Lane ;
                                                                                               47
                      Providing a safe crossing of the A22 and improving pavements on the west side of the
                       A22 leading to it;
               and adapting the road to the proposed (WH:EDF) development to WSCC Highways
               standards;




               44 This is – supposedly - because 64 parking spaces already exist in the [defunct] EDF building.
               45 Presumably so children can cycle to school
               46 Used at a maximum for ten hours a day and five days a week and in which parked cars mainly remained
               unmoved
               47 Which has been badly damaged by the sludge collection vehicles
   37   38   39   40   41   42   43   44   45   46   47