Page 37 - Ashbourne Park

STEPS TOWARDS AN AGREED STATEMENT OF FACTS
And stipulations

7. 7 Comments on Key Elements (Continued)

It is believed that the Mid Sussex Local Plan 2004 was disqualified before 2018 because the
council had failed to maintain a 5-year land supply . It was finally replaced in March 2018 by
30
the Mid Sussex Council District Plan. This does not carry forward or “save” policies T4 nor
T5 nor any equivalents.
Page | 29
The AWNP – policy ASW21 which is not challenged by the MSDC 2018 local plan- is the
prevailing standard and specifies two parking spaces per dwelling. That is 142 for the
proposed development. The application tries to dismiss this number by again referring to the
defunct Mid Sussex Local Plan (2004) - policy T5 and states: “parking standards are set out
within supplementary planning guidance, with parking in excess of the standards not
allowed”. Nice try; BUT it is based on a disqualified policy.

Residents of Sussex are among the most prolific car owners in the country, with an average of
1.6 per dwelling. This figure does not allow for the fact that many affordable housing
residents are artisans many of whom are provided with vans and trucks for work and to
commute. Trade vehicles are parked outside homes overnight and at weekends. These
vehicles are not included in ownership figures.

The proposed development is 50 car parking spaces short and the integrated version
98.

Affordable housing is usually crammed in closest to the entrances of mixed developments.
Thus, assisted residents, (who are likely to have between 1.6 and 2.6 vehicles per dwelling but
only 0.8 spaces), are placed at entrances. If this is not a recipe for disharmony, parking on
verges and pathways nothing is.

The Traffic Survey notes concerns about “over dominant car parking” raised by MSDC during
the pre-application discussions in 2016 and “seeks a balance between maximising the amount
of car parking space whilst at the same time ensuring sufficient space is allocated to
landscaping at the site”. The only effort to mitigate the dominance of parking is the
reduction from 100 to 93. It is not good enough.

The MSDC recommendation for underground parking is not even mentioned.

7.7 Density in Dwellings and Amenities
The flats vary in size from 540 to 800 sq. ft and are little better than boxes, totally unsuitable
for families with children and elderly. There is little storage space and none for mobility
scooters and prams. The flat, dark roofs will attract heat and in summer months the top floors
will be unbearable without air-conditioning and add to the angst of occupants.
Only flats 13-14 (3), 15-16 (3),41-43 (6),70-71(3) have undercover parking which may also be
used for storage purposes.

The density of the development and individual flats is likely to create disharmony.

30 But was still used by councils