Page 72 - All files for Planning Inspectorate update

The applicant has provided a viability assessment that purports to demonstrate that
development of the site is not viable if it includes affordable housing. Frankly the viability
assessment is so hedged about with estimates, assumptions and caveats that it could be
made to “prove” anything. Presumably what AHL really mean is that they will not make an
acceptable profit if the requirement is complied with. That is their problem (if, indeed, it is
one), and is not to be solved by seeking to ignore local and national planning policy.

Common sense refutes the idea that this site cannot be developed profitably. If it cannot
meet AHL’s profit criteria then they would be better employed directing their efforts
elsewhere rather than asking for a pass on this fundamental policy.

This is a document commissioned and, presumably, paid for by the developer. We are
therefore reassured to read in your email of 18 January 2019 to Nicola Cresswell that this
viability assessment will be subject to independent scrutiny, and we assume that the results
of that will be filed on the planning web site

2. We continue to believe that development at this scale represents over-development of the
site. This is an issue we have raised on numerous occasions before without getting a
satisfactory answer. This site was identified in the AWNP as suitable for 50+ units. Nobody
has so far explained how that number was arrived at other than being plucked from thin air.
It was certainly not identified as the result of a housing needs survey as you yourself have
admitted that no such survey was ever undertaken.

AWNP Policy 9h provides that the mix and volume of housing should “be informed by an up-
to-date housing needs survey”. As your own Council’s response to our request under the
Freedom of Information Act reveals “the District Council have not prepared any housing
needs surveys specific to this site”.

We continue to find this astonishing, and seems to be redolent of a less than thoughtful
dash to build as many properties as possible irrespective of the needs or wants (or, indeed,
existence) of potential buyers. Given the extensive number of flats currently or recently
under development in the centre of East Grinstead, sales of which seem to be going very
slowly, it seems to us to have been grossly negligent not to undertake such a survey for such
a potentially controversial site in a rural location – as has proven to be the case.

It is possible that an over-estimate of the scope for development was made because so
much of the gross size of the site is unsuitable for development due to being ancient
woodland and required buffer zone. If so this needs to be taken into consideration when
considering whether or not development at this scale should be approved.

It needs also to be borne in mind that the identification of the site as suitable for 50+ units is
not of itself definitive.
“There is a table in the Neighbourhood Plan that sets out the approximate capacity of the
allocated sites within the Parish. The site at Wealden House is listed in the policy as having
an approximate capacity of 50+.