Page 15 - John Belsey

Paragraph 5 & 6
Supporting Reports & Actions

• The LHA acknowledges that the TRICs outputs [are relevant and are] in accordance
with TRICS Best Practice Guidance – of the trip rate from the new dwellings in
comparison with the existing use. FACT: this is nonsense;
• While the proposal does exceed the 30-vehicle movement threshold, the existing use
of the site and less intensive nature does not warrant a formal junction assessment.
FACT: It does exceed the WSCC threshold and a formal assessment is essential;
• It is recognised that this proposal would give rise to a less intensive use of the existing
access onto London Road {sic}. This proposal is not anticipated to result in a severe
cumulative impact on the operation of the local network in accordance with
paragraph 32 of the National Planning Policy Framework. FACT: The evidence is
counterfactual.

5. Jamie Brown classifies the development “as a small scale to be provided for local housing
needs”. It is, in fact, admitted by MSDC as a “major development”.
Offsets
1. On 10 July 2018, a “Planning Services Division: Section 106 Consultation Response” was
th
added to MSDC website, supposedly setting out how some – but not all- infrastructure
impacts could be offset by payment. The formulae for calculating the amounts are largely
incomprehensible and - where they can be audited – bordering on nonsensical and wholly
in the developer’s favour.
2. The bottom line is that the proposed one-off payment of £246,267 will not compensate
for additional infrastructure demands. The funds are to be used for:

• Seven school places. Based on a “child products” such as “0.4627” “and total places”
required of “3.2389”. Extrapolation of Census figures indicate that up to 25 additional
school places will be required;

• Improvements to libraries in East Grinstead and Haywards Heath;

• A cycle path along the A22 towards East Grinstead ;
31
• Safety improvements at the School Lane and Maypole Lane junction;

• Traffic calming within the village of Ashurst Wood;
• Improvements to the village sports pavilion to compensate for an absence of play
areas within the application site. It is idiotic to force children to cross the A22 and
walk two miles just to kick a ball for ten minutes;

• Sustainable traffic: whatever than means when the application will generate a mass of
new commuters and massive parking problems.

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

5 SUGGESTED ACTIONS
I believe there are strong points in favour of developing the WH site and that AHL is a
qualified operator which residents would be prepared support: if its directors and MSDC
planners would only listen.

Page | 15