Page 179 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

recognition of the potential dangers is creating and inviting trouble. You might also like to
note that as I write there is a significant and considerable profusion of native English
primroses in the position of that entrance parking lot, a sight now scarce in Ashurstwood.
it
Wouldn be better to nurture this locally rare occurrence rather than destroy it?
I would now like to
highlight the piecemeal
approach to the
development of this site
when it was originally
thought that the LIC (Life
Improvement Centre)
otherwise known as
We alden House, would be
incorporated into the
overall development plan. I
have included a map from a
council source when that
plan for Ashurstwood was
under discussion. Three
years later it can be clearly
seen that the triangular
site 8b is progressing,
albeit slowly, yet the
Wealden House site has
been shaved off. T he
demolition of the EDF
buildi ng will leave standing
a structure that links the
main block to Wealden
House. I have learnt from a
retired Control Engineer
who worked in that
building when it was operated by the S outh E astern E lectricity Board, that at that time they
owned BOTH buildings and the LINK BUILDING was built to do exactly that, to link both
buildings together. Leaving the link building untouched will exacerbate the dreadfully
neglected appearance of Wealden House and an opportunity to replace it with something
more pleasing wi ll be missed. Wealden House has no particular aesthetic merit nor has it
any significant age (being early 1900s), but it is an opportunity to reproduce a block or
series of blocks in the idiom of the house it/they would replace.

Something which should concern the council, but currently doesn seem to figure in their
documentation is the saleability of the units being proposed. The Government concern for
housing which is delegated to local authorities is intended to provide home s for people to
live in. Instead we seem to be in a hurry to put up anything designated a home without any
idea whether or not it/they are likely to find buyers. Nothing has been said concerning the
estate management once the developer leaves. An Estate Management fee would fall in the
bracket }2K to }5K annually and that will immediately filter out those who want to buy.
Few young families and/or individuals on low or uncertain incomes would be attracted or
able to buy. So, what does the developer say on this issue? What does he envisage?

I n conclusion, my objections are concerned with the aesthetics of the development and the
volume of traffic that it will generate over and above that which exists today . I would
support any sensible development on this site and although this new proposal is an
improvement on the previous one, it totally fails to address the TWO main issues that
concern me. Therefore I must register my objection.

I am yours faithfully
CLIFFORD TRETHEWEY (Mr.)