Page 2 - John Belsey

• New housing in England is being built at an average density of 25DdHa with more
2
than half being below 21DdHa. The Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) states “that
(20DdHa) represents a level of land take---- which can no longer be sustained---[and]
is less likely to sustain local services, ultimately adding to social exclusion”.

There is no doubt that over-development acts against sustainability.

• There is massive confusion, substantial inconsistencies and errors in the tsunami of
reports on sustainability, Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment (SLAA),
Strategic Housing and Economic Land Availability Assessment (SHELAA), Strategic
Housing and Employment Land Availability Assessment (also abbreviated as
3
SHELAA), Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA), Strategic Market Assessment
(SMA), Strategic Land Availability Assessment (SLAA), Brownfield Land Register (BLR),
Windfall Study and between main reports, interim reports, trajectories, criteria,
updated reports, appendices, addendums, site-proformas: with different references,
post codes, confusion of gross and net areas or missing calculations for the same land.

4
Complexity has swamped common sense .
• Anyone who walks through Ashbourne Park, with a copy of Lytle Associate’s Design
and Access Statement in their hands, cannot fail but conclude that the proposed
development violates every important planning principle and, would be a joke if it
did not have such a devastating impact on the village.

• The developer’s retained experts admit the proposed design is “utilitarian”, suitable
for a “starkly urban” area. They use this misdescription to justify creating - what they
bombast is - an “urbs in rure with a DdHa twenty-six times that of Ashurst Wood ;
5
6
If “creating a city in the country” is not a violation of planning principles for a rural village
nothing is.
• Mid Sussex District Council (MSDC) is considering the current - WH:EDF- application
for 71 units in isolation. Although the design is appalling and non-compliant, it is the
thin end of a wedge of a much worse integrated development of 120 dwellings
lurking in the background;
• Many of the expert reports and consultation responses – especially on town planning,
traffic flows and offsets - produced in support of the application are unacceptably
biased, bordering on disingenuous, and should be ignored or replaced.
I again emphasise that I do not represent Ashdown Park Owners’ Association (APOA) and
that the following views are entirely my own. I am not seeking conflict, to embarrass anyone
or interfere with any commercial arrangements. However, the developments planned for the
WH sites would destroy the distinctive characteristics of Ashurst Wood forever; the value and
amenity of my home and will be resisted through in every available channel.

I do not oppose the concept of developing both the Wealden House sites. But this is
conditional on transparency and compliance with planning principles and policies – especially
on sustainability, building density and design - so that Ashurst Wood avoids degenerating into
a ghetto, becoming a national laughing stock and fodder for red top newspapers.

Page | 2