stop Etonbury - new town in East Chiltington wrongthingwrongplace.com
wrong thing wrong place  logo

the Eton versus East Chiltington chronicles

the Nolands Farm digression - episode 1

see also:- episode 2 - the North Korea mindset crisis
....
In February 2021 the residents of East Chiltington learned that Eton College had plans to destroy their way of life by concreting over vast swathes of Sussex downland to build an unasked for and entirely unnecessary new town. Under that smokescreen another developer Fairfax rushed in their application to plant 89 houses along the same bridleway.
....
Now it begins... precursor to Eton's new town?
Nolands Farm site - thin end of the wedge  to enable Eton new town
Planning Application LW/21/0262 - Nolands Farm, Station Road, Plumpton Green, BN7 3BT Outline application for the demolition of 2 existing dwellings and outbuildings and the erection of up to 89 residential dwellings.
Editor:- April 16, 2021 - A detailed formal planning application LW/21/0262 has been lodged in the past week to build 89 houses on farmland in Plumpton Green to the East of Station Road and the North side of North Barnes Lane in the area adjacent to the Eton College site recently discussed as a possible new town application in East Chiltington.

The site - called Nolands Farm - isn't owned by Eton College - but is on land adjacent to the Eton site.

The transport assessment document submitted with the plan says "North Barnes Lane should be considered as a separate construction access route for the development."

This - as visitors to the site know - is currently a cracked concrete footpath / bridleway which isn't suitable for cars. Upgrading this track to a lorry capable highway could be the first step in creating a promenade to Eton's new town stretching from Station Road in Plumpton to Novington Lane in East Chiltington.

Editor's comments:- this application can be regarded as the Trojan Horse or Thin End of the Wedge for completely changing the character of Plumpton and East Chiltington and facilitating the new town by salami slicing.

The 176 page transport document says that the traffic plan is sustainable. But this is based on the potentially misleading assertion that "2/3 of all journeys in the UK are under 5 miles" which is used to justify the plan's entire set of traffic mitigations. There is no evidence presented to show that this is any way representative of journeys likely to take place when 89 new households are paracommuted into the rarified job space of rural Plumpton.

You can make your comments on the Lewes Planning site by following the links to LW/21/0262. The original closing date has been extended.
....

extracts from 616 objections

"...although planning departments can receive and store emails from residents - their software changes the colours of the words to make them invisible. This is a health and safety measure to reduce eyestrain if they get too many objections."

from the article - consultation? - the burglar analogy

....

"The applicant states in the Planning Statement (8.10) "There is no defensible reason why 'in principle' the application site cannot deliver 89 new homes, a business hub and associated green infrastructure."

Plumpton Parish Council would respectfully suggest that representing democracy is a fundamental British value, and in Lewes of all locations that principle should be defended...

Plumpton Parish Council considers that the applicant has misrepresented the discussions that have been carried out with the Parish Council during the pre-application process. Furthermore the Parish Council would respectfully remind Lewes District Council that pre-application advice is not binding on the authority in the determination of the application... The Parish Council objects to this application and would ask that LDC planning officers honour the commitment to give high (i.e. substantial) weight to the Neighbourhood Plan and Local Plan... ...more"

Nick Beaumont - Chair: Plumpton Parish Council - 13/5/2021 (published on LDC site 21/5/2021)


"There is already too much traffic through the village - which only has one main road, so there is no possibility for traffic to be diverted elsewhere. The additional air pollution that will be created by the cars of the new home owners run counter to government policies regarding clean air and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Noise pollution will also be a problem, alongside light pollution. In addition, Plumpton's water and sewage infrastructure is inadequate and there is no capacity to deal with the needs of extra housing on this scale. The development will change the rural character of the village, destroy fields, hedgerows and other wildlife habitats and remove from use productive agricultural land. As a Plumpton resident, I oppose this development."

Dr Ruth Segal - 17/5/2021


"There is no evidence of need for these homes on the proposed site and there is not the infrastructure in the village of Plumpton Green to support them or any proposals to provide additional infrastructure."

Mr Simon Ward - 16/5/2021


"This is an serious overdevelopment of a small village that will destroy important countryside making a rural environment urban."

Mr Daniel Barr-Richardson - 14/5/2021


"As regards POLICY. The Plumpton Neighbourhood plan did not include this as a site for development within the plan period and to permit this development in the plan period would therefore be against the Local Planning Authority's policy.

As regards HIGHWAYS HAZARDS. The access to the site will be from Station Road at a point where the road is narrow and where resident parking has been common for many years. To facilitate the access, such parking would have to be relocated but there is no alternative place for such. Additionally, it is possible that some form of lighting of the access point would be needed for safety reasons. Plumpton Green has no road lighting and therefore such would be to the detriment of the village."

Mr Paul Nicholson - 14/5/2021


"I am writing this after scanning many of the comments already recorded here. Collectively they make an overwhelming case for refusing the latest planning application for the Nolands site. To disregard this case, and approve the application, would expose the public consultation process as a sham. We would see that the town and country planning system had ceased to serve the public interest."

Mr Stuart Greenstreet - 14/5/2021


"I am alarmed at the proposal to use North Barnes Lane as site access. This is a narrow farm track and public bridleway, well used by walkers, horse riders and cyclists. The eventual site access off Station Road (which can only be realised by demolishing 2 perfectly good houses) is near the brow of a hill and almost opposite the village shop. The effect of this is to combine bad visibility with increased traffic as deliveries and shoppers stop off here. It seems a very dangerous place to have an access junction."

Mrs Lisa Clack - 13/5/2021


"My 4th reason for objecting to this planning application is Educational facilities. The homes in the development can be described as family homes. If each home had a primary school age child this would increase the demand on Plumpton Primary School by nearly 100%. There are currently 120 children at the school, the addition of 89 new pupils would take that number to over 200, I cannot see how the school could accommodate such a dramatic rise in its numbers."

Mrs Helen Banks - 19/5/2021


"It is NOT WANTED. I will let cooler and more knowledgeable heads than me comment but we all know this is nothing more than egregiously opportunistic action prompted by the desire for profit rather than the spurious aim of providing "necessary housing.""

Mrs Jane Gane - 14/5/2021


"Just say No!"

Miss Zoey Walters - 12/5/2021


"Stripped of its superficial greenwash and its imaginative but completely implausible transport statement, this is a proposal to create a large new housing estate for commuters at a sensitive and car-dependent countryside location at Plumpton Green, at a time when there are large allocated urban-centre brownfield development sites in Lewes and Newhaven, with and without planning permission, whose construction is stalled by the developer preference for the windfall profits arising from countryside planning permissions such as that sought here. The national interest and the critical fight against climate change demands that such self-interested and destructive proposals to prioritise greenfield over brownfield development are refused. Plumpton residents (who have demonstrated through their Neighbourhood Plan that they are willing to accept appropriate development in their village) have unambiguously shown their overwhelming opposition to the disproportionate scale of this proposal, which would be very damaging to Plumpton's sense of place.

Comparison of the transport systems actually used by the real residents of Lewes and Newhaven (available on the East Sussex in Figures website maintained by East Sussex County Council) demonstrates beyond any shadow of a doubt the much higher use of the private car in communities such as Plumpton Green, despite the presence of a railway station, compared to those of the equivalent urban households. Rural residents have no realistic alternative. They not only own far more cars; they also necessarily make much greater use of them. The application notes the presence of a GP surgery in South Chailey, barely 45 minutes' walk away, for Plumpton Green residents to use. It does not mention that there is no footpath along the narrow, busy, country lanes connecting the two, or consider that those needing to access primary care may be unable to walk such a distance." ...read more

Dr John Kay - for Lewes District branch, CPRE Sussex


"There are currently ongoing issues with the gardens cracking and sinking in Sun Close and feel this would just add to the issues. The area looking to be developed on will just have a knock on affect causing more problems for residents. Plumpton is currently known for its beautiful surroundings snd greenery and building more houses will destroy what all the residents love about the village."

Mr Craig Hickey - 13/5/2021


"I am a resident on Plumpton Lane and I strongly object to the development for the reasons I have indicated in the radio boxes. Additionally my house is located close to the road with my bedroom window being approximately 5 meters from the curb side, it is already currently very noisy and with the additional traffic that has increased over the years it is quite unbearable to have my bedroom window open when I'm in the room, which over the past year having had to work from home has been a considerable amount of time spent in my room without being able to open the window."

Mr Jonathan Hemsley - 12/5/2021


"There is currently an approved development of some 20 -odd houses? being built in the middle of the village. This is causing even more disruption to traffic and aggregate lorries are parked in the bus stop next to The Plough Inn pub for up to half an hour with their engines running, polluting the environment as they wait for the site to open at 8am."

Mrs Anna Phillips - 12/5/2021


"Where communal parking occurs it is important that they must be within view of an active room within the property... where there is direct and visual connection between the room and the street or the parking area... (not from bedrroms and bathrooms)... Previous experience has shown that where parking courts are hidden away behind trees, shrubbery or fences they can become targets for crime. This can result in the vehicle owners deserting their designated bays and parking on the street in full view of their house. Additionally I noticed the lack of visitor parking across the development. These factors combined could have the potential for illegal parking, obstruction of the road layout and refuse and emergency vehicles as well as the neighbourly disharmony. ...more"

Phil Edwards - Sussex Police HQ - 10/5/2021


"Nothing has changed since this application was refused in 2019. It would be urbanisation of open countryside. In Plumpton itself there is often road congestion caused by parked vehicles in the village centre and with significantly more residents and a business hub this would set to worsen and emergency vehicles would be unable to pass through/slowed down along Station Road. It is a development that is out of proportion with the village. It would become a residential sprawl."

Mrs Yvonne Platt - 10/5/2021


"We understand that there may be a one way system on Station Road meaning that from the north of the village we would have to travel miles to get to and from the village shop/post office/station. The village is on the boundary of the South Downs National Park where there is supposed to be a soft boundary. Views from the Downs would be impacted."

Mrs Josephine Dubber - 8/5/2021


"The current Government's 2019 Manifesto promised: 'to safeguard our green spaces we will continue to prioritise brownfield development'. This sort of speculative proposal is directly in opposition to this claim. This is covering precious green fields with tarmac and concrete. It represents the biggest development ever seen in Plumpton in the modern planning era and far more than the Neighbourhood Plan (Policy 5) of development of small sites. It risks too high a density and percentage increase in village growth for Plumpton to assimilate within its current character."

Mrs Anna Norris - 8/5/2021


"Moved to Plumpton 40 years ago to enjoy a small village community in surrounding countryside. Over recent years, more and more houses are being built, changing the whole community, leading to an ever-more urban lifestyle. Living on Station Road we see daily the increasing traffic and fear this becoming worse on this and all local country roads."

Mrs Gillian Brunt - 13/5/2021


"At the moment children can walk alone down Station Road to the recreation ground, if developments like this are allowed it will be a slippery slope and soon children will need to be driven everywhere in the village. Today I saw a cycling proficiency class in the village, parents won't want their children cycling if traffic increases and increases. Developers should not decide where development should take place, this is for the council and the population."

Mrs Charlotte Boulton - 6/5/2021


"Plumpton is a linear village with access north and south either end via 'awkward' junctions both ends. As traffic levels increase with more new homes, so these junctions will get busier and busier. As can be seen on race days these junctions cannot cope with heavy traffic."

Mr Oliver St.John - 7/5/2021


"This housing estate would needlessly destroy a large swathe of green fields with a lot of important habitat for plants and wildlife. This area, because it has not been intensively farmed, is rich in many species , many of which are threatened nationally and declining in numbers due to unnecessary destruction of their natural habitat. Rare Bats, Reptiles such as Slow worms and Grass snakes , Toads and frogs , dragonflies and insects and hedgehogs will all disappear .

These species would not relocate as the proposed estate would extend right up to monoculture farmed fields.The so called "green areas" set aside within the proposed estate are no substitute for what would be destroyed by the concrete.

Important birdlife would also be lost, such as the sight of Kestrels and Owls hunting, and predictably the beautiful song of the Nightingale would not be heard again, which has been a feature here for the last few years. The ecology report in the planning application makes no mention of these losses as it was compiled at the wrong time of year to fully document the biodiversity in the area."

Mr Phil Laycock - 2/5/2021


"Village already suffers from regular water supply issues and sewage blockages at the church."

Mr Roger Ainger - 4/5/2021


"Makes a mockery of all the work that went into producing the Village Plan."

Mr Peter Pratt - 14/5/2021


"Access for both the building of these properties and forever after will cause severe problems in terms of safety, pollution and traffic congestion. Plumpton Green is a small linear village that has a single road that runs through it. This development would make traveling in and out of the village intolerable. Think of traveling through Ditchling on a busy day and you can foresee the future of Plumpton Green if this development is allowed."

Mr John Fahey - 4/5/2021


"If, as Fairfax Acquisitions claim, this development would - count towards the requirements of the new, emerging Local Plan - then surely the merits or otherwise of this application should be considered alongside any other potential sites once the new plan emerges AND NOT BEFORE. Whilst the existing Local Plan is due to expire there are 3 development sites which formed part of this plan [democratically approved locally and approved by LDC which are yet to be built]. This site was rejected by local residents. It makes no sense democratically to even consider this application until the 3 sites already given approval have actually been built or at least started to be built."

Mr Paul de Edmunds - 27/04/2021


"People who have invested their money and lives in the village have done so to enjoy its quiet, rural setting, within a small community. We enjoy this whilst putting up with the lack of infrastructure that a larger town can economically justify. We have no gas, poor roads, few pavements (and those that we have are narrow and very worn). There are ongoing problems with inadequate drainage, and in heavy rainfall the stream around our property overflows with the sub-pump which frequently has to eject untreated sewage into the waterways (to avoid sewage returning into the local properties)."

Mrs Rachel de Vial - 27/4/2021


"A development of this size can change the nature of a rural village and overwhelm its infrastructure - in this case the water, drainage and road infrastructure in particular. Road access is difficult with only one way in and out of the site onto Plumpton Lane. The increased traffic from 89 houses will cause hold ups in Plumpton and make parking even more challenging. The proposed access for contractor traffic via North Barnes Lane is absurd and dangerous given the narrow lane and the usage made of it by walkers, riders and cyclists as well as local residents, and the positioning next to the school play ground. The additional street lighting will negatively affect the SDNP 'Dark Skies' area.

This is one of a series of developments along the East Chiltington/Plumpton parish boundary that are under consideration in the process of developing a new local plan for the Lewes district. If we are not careful Plumpton and East Chiltington will end up joined together into a 'super' new town formed by either a series of such developments plus the proposed Eton New Town." ...read more

Ms Janet Downes - 14/5/2021


"Vast amounts of time and money have been dedicated to the Neighbourhood Plan. To disregard its findings and needs of the village, after extensive consultation is neither necessary or in keeping with what the Local and Parish Councils were led to believe. This application doesn't just jeopardise the structure of the village, the credibility of the NP but the trust of any future consultation of members of the public that is sought."

Mrs Clare Eastwood - 26/4/2021


"It is only 5 years since the South Downs National Park was designated an International Dark Sky Reserve and as recently as 2019 the Conservative Party in its election manifesto, clearly stated...

to safeguard our green spaces, we will continue to prioritise brownfield development, particularly for the regeneration of our cities and towns....

What short memories some people have! At a time when Britain faces a future alone, outside of the EU andwith a greater need to maximise the output of it's own farming, the concreting over of hundreds of acres of prime agricultural land is sheer madness."

Mr Stewart Allum - 25/4/2021


"We really must put a cap on the amount of development in our area. I understand this proposal represents an additional 16% on Plumpton housing stock and is not in the neighbourhood plan. Such aproportional increase puts a terrific strain on local infrastructure. We also need to be mindful of the even greater threat to our area of the proposed Eton Land project. If Nolands Farm gets the go ahead, this could be the thin edge of the wedge and the end of the peaceful rural community as we know it."

Mr Ian Martin - 24/4/2021


Editor:- April 26, 2021:- the above comments and those in the column on the right are simply a small sample of what I've seen in the objections to the plan currently visible (it was 60 at that time - and had grown to 300 objections approx at the closing date May 14th).

It's heartwarming to see how much people care about this land. Sad too - that all this effort to protect the green spaces is necessary.

Every field counts. Once it's gone it's gone forever. OK maybe not forever - strictly speaking - but likely for hundreds of years.

I compared the damaging effect of concreting over farmland today in East Sussex to the harms caused by the agricultural pesticide DDT in the 1950s - in a blog - Final Spring in Novington Lane?. It's just shameful that such things are happening when e know better.

As many residents have already commented - democracy is an illusion if the planning framework - which we are told to trust - can be so easily broken by land promoters busting the norms of our democratically agreed neighbourhood plans.

Like You - I don't want to be doing this. (Writing about these things.) But we can't let these issues go by in the hope that someone else will deal with them and make them go away. Our pool of nearby someone elses is limited. That's the way we like it.

We're grappling with influences which seem to regard our pleasant green spaces in the same way that the 19th century colonial powers of Europe looked at the mineral resources of the rest of the world - as assets to be plundered for financial gain - regardless of the well being of those who lived there.

If you find this web site useful - please tell your friends. I was going to switch it off this year - as it had served its original temporary purpose back in 2016. (The caviar farm story.) And I was looking forward to a quiet life of writing about nothing much... Looks like wrong thing wrong place isn't going to be switched off any time soon.

Thanks for your time.

Zsolt Kerekes - editor@wrongthingwrongplace.com

.
the new field equation... (it's not Physics)

DDT(1950s) = concrete(2020s)

where "=" means "is just as bad"
silent spring and concrETON image wrongthingwrongplacedotcom
Final Spring in Novington Lane?

.
South Downs Eton by dog

Dear XXX [insert] Lewes planning person

the Nolands Farm digression - episode 2

.

the landscape assessment walks in East Chiltington

What do you like in this landscape?

What makes you happy being here?

Do you recognise the dogs?

Was it really that long ago?
. the landscape survey walks in East Chiltington remembered

Editor:- a new article - the landscape assessment walks in East Chiltington - looks back at an event which has particular relevance today - when we're thinking about what it is we're trying to protect. ...read the article
....
Whitehouse Farm Plumpton - sign says no Eton new town
....
Nolands Fairfax is just the most advanced so far (in terms of planning application readiness) of 3 different "new development" hotspots along North Barnes Lane
the simple ma££s of planning gain
....

89 houses here?

scroll down to see extracts from 616 objections

"Lewes District Council has declared a climate change emergency. Any council claiming to care about this issue yet even considering approval of such an inappropriate proposal would be guilty of the absolute hypocrisy" - Dr John Kay - CPRE Sussex - 14/5/2021 Nolands site  Plumpton  LW/21/0262 April 2021
site photo above - April 2021

"I support a Plan-led local development system. While a new one is being drawn up, Lewes District Council should use every available means to robustly defend the existing Local Plan which includes saying "no" once again to this site." read more

Councillor Rob Banks, Plumpton, East Chiltington, Streat and St John Without ward - 19/5/2021


"The people of Plumpton strongly supported the Neighbourhood Plan in a democratic vote, which at the time of the vote was a 10-year view. That the government arbitrarily chose to change the goalposts on the timing of the Neighbourhood Plan does not change in anyway the clear and unambiguous views of the local population. This application has clearly been submitted with complete disregard of that democratic process, and runs roughshod over the views of the most important people here. Scant consideration has been given to the state of the sewers in Plumpton, which are already at capacity, and the bizarre solution of road calming is solving a problem that does not exist and is not evidenced... Concreting over green fields clearly does not benefit the countryside, despite any spurious claims that it would be beneficial. Let's stick to what we originally agreed and voted for.

Mr Mac Gardiner - 13/5/2021


"This site was considered and rejected during the recent Neighbourhood Plan process. To give anymore than a cursory glance at this application would mean that the whole Neighbourhood planning process has been a sham. The application should therefore be rejected as being completely contrary to a nationally agreed democratic process"

Mr Kevin Cohen - 13/5/2021


"I have read in a respected planning journal recently that the contingency rules about planning meetings which were brought in to expedite matters due to Covid - have been changed. This means that if this decision goes to committee - which seems proper given the fact that I have counted over 400 objections to it - mostly from local people who live in or visit Plumpton - as far as can be ascertained by their letters - then I hope that LDC makes provision to accommodate the larger than usual number of people who may be attending those proceedings... I hope that a big enough venue can be arranged..."

Zsolt Kerekes - 21/5/2021 (following up an earlier objection 16/4/2021)


"Councillors committed to reducing CO2 emissions & controlling excessive development have appealed directly to us to fight the proposed desecration and speculative development of huge swathes of unspoilt countryside -as in the Nolands Farm development and Eton College's appalling collusion with equally greedy property developers to have 500 acres of fertile arable land destroyed and concreted over from North Barns Farm. Both developments involve swallowing up East Chiltington and Plumpton farmland and, in the case of Eton College, all along the very edge of the South Downs. Downland villages like East Chiltington, Plumpton, Chailey being merged into a proposed huge South Downs new town is outrageous and unthinkable lunacy and also gratuitous."

Mrs Penelope Forbes - 13/5/2021


"I would like to formally voice my opposition to the proposed development, and what this would mean in terms of opening the door to the proposed Eton development which would fundamentally change the area beyond recognition. Focusing for now on the development in question, the developers have not for one second considered the infrastructure requirements which are already unable to cope with the existing demand in relation to the sewer system, and general facilities in the village. There has been no consideration to the added traffic within the village which will at the busier times, turn the road into car-park. If I am understanding correctly, we might have to bring in street lighting and traffic calming measures which will fundamentally change the character of the village, with the resulting light polution and traffic harming biodiversity."

Mr Patrick Keeley - 14/5/2021


"This proposal is completely contrary to the Plumpton Neighbourhood Plan, which specifically rejected development on this site. The Plan stated that housing development should be low in density, retain the rural character of the village and protect existing landscape and natural features. The proposed development is contrary to all of these. These issues are enormously important to the people who live in Plumpton and the surrounding villages. The Plan is meant to play an important part in the planning process for 15 years, so it makes a mockery of the process if large-scale developments such as this are then subsequently approved just 3 years later."

Mrs Victoria Rowlands - 14/5/2021


"As a resident of neighbouring East Chiltington and user of Plumpton Station and its village shop I am aware of how these 2 existing villages have developed and are supported by limited rural infrastructure. These villages are strung along the narrow north south lanes from the South Downs escarpment. Plumpton benefits from the limited services at its railway station and the racecourse . Plumpton Green itself has only grown incrementally north of the railway line. The scale of this development is not justifiable on farmland behind the ribbon of housing along Plumpton Lane. Only this April I heard nightingales at night singing in the trees behind these very houses . The scale and activitiy of so many new homes will destroy this edge to a quiet and dark (at night) village."

Mr Robert Kennett - 14/5/2021


"How can we have a democratic plan on the future of our village, and then it be completely ignored because some moved the goal posts? It would also make Plumpton considerably larger in a very much shorter period of time than a slow progression of smaller developments."

Mr Jim Brown - 5/5/2021


"My objection is two fold or rather number one is the overture to what follows. The elephant in the room is the Eton land housing proposals (3000 houses) and the Nolands farm development is the easement to the larger scheme. It still represents infringement into the buffer zone to the SDNP, overdevelopment in Plumpton, with significant pressure on already underinvestment in infrastructure."

Mr Hamish Black - 12/5/2021


"What are we doing to our beautiful countryside? We won't have any left if projects like this get approved. Aside from that, the infrastructure in the area wouldn't be able to support it. Why are we reducing our open spaces when there are other options? What is going to happen to all those empty office blocks now that more are working from home for example? Do not approve this development."

Mrs Nicole Pearce - 14/5/2021


"We moved to Plumpton Green because it was a village and we would like it to remain a village. The proposed development is too large for the current infrastructure and would destroy the character of the village. Currently we have no gas, poor broadband and frequent power cuts, all proof of the inadequate current infrastructure serving the current housing numbers... This development is an attack on the open countryside and the environment, especially so close to the South Downs National Park."

Mrs Muriele Pearce - 6/5/2021


"We have no need for the extra houses, a hub and community spaces. The development encroaches on an already outstanding community of scouts and the land they use. Our beautiful fields, wildlife and ecosystem will be destroyed - all for greedy financial gain. This will be devastating for the village and surrounding areas."

Mrs Suzanne Crouch - 19/4/2021


"Hello I am currently in the process of moving to Plumpton green - nearly weeks away until exchange. I have seen a large number of relevant points raised by the parish council the most important of which would be the loss of Local youth (Scouts) amenity - this would mean that there are no clubs/ facilities for teenagers in the local area this must not happen! A lack of guidance and encouragement at this vital age can have a negative effect on our teenagers and on the surrounding community as often a lack of engagement leads to larger amounts of petty crime and vandalism."

Mr Paul Tilbrook - 11/5/2021


"The destruction of 2 modern, well maintained and desirable properties is not justified as a means to gain access to the development site. There are other planning options, identified in the current local Neighbourhood Plan which do not require such drastic action."

D Holmes - 28/4/2021


"The entire planning system is clearly flawed if a planning consultant such as Parker Dann - on behalf of Fairfax - on behalf of who exactly? - can collaborate with the LDC planning officers to produce an acceptable application before the public even are aware. This leaves the public out of the process until they find out - too late - that an application has been made in their area. Democracy Zero - the current planning system holds all the developer cards"

Miss Julia Tingle - 25/4/2021


"This proposed development of 89 houses MUST NOT BE ALLOWED. It is the thin end of the wedge. if this is allowed it will open the flood gates to every opportunistic money grabbing developer to try to build on more of our precious open spaces in and around Plumpton. I already have to put up with the awful looking Sun Close development which is a total eyesore from my back garden. The Noland site would adjoin this... With the additional worry of Eton College wanting to build 3000 houses next to this site and beyond, the mental stress is becoming overwhelming. My family have lived in Plumpton from at least 1840, my great grand father farmed Nolands when it was Knowlands Farm in the 1880's, and I was born here 73 years ago seeing many changes over the years but nothing to compare with the potential unbalancing of our village community with so many houses.

It has been democratically agreed that the three relatively small developments are all that is needed. The village road is almost impassable due to the narrow width parked cars and delivery vans. The existing sewage system is almost unable to cope with the existing out fall due to it being an antiquated pumped system in a 6 inch pitch fibre pipe up to 10 feet deep which only serves the section from Hilltop to the station and feeds into a 15 inch pipe taken across country to a sewage works near Barcombe. This extra housing with those already under way would surely lead to overloading and possible spillage into the Bevern and River Ouse. The site was historically one of Plumpton's 10 brickyards with claypits now matured into ponds supporting rich wildlife. The ground is weald clay which does not drain well and building on it would lead to more run off and increase flooding."

Mr Richard Wells - 14/5/2021


"The negative impact of 89 new dwellings and likely considerable traffic generation on an already dangerous section of station road (especially during construction) should be considered."

Mr Jonathan Hayward - 22/4/2021


"The location of the development is also adjacent to land where houses that have just been built have seen their gardens collapsing (Sun Close), which must need further investigation before any considerations to this plan can even be further considered, on thegrounds it would be negligent of planning not to do so, having had this significant safety risk raised."

Mr Stuart Wallis - 22/4/2021


"The proposed highway works are only so that the development can meet highways safety requirements and will inconvenience everyone else in the village for the sake of the developers. These works are completely out of keeping with the street scene. Many of the developments in the neighbourhood plan are only just being built out so the cumulative effect of these unimplemented planning permissions in addition to this site (which represents 125% of the dwellings due to be built in the plan) is unknown."

Mrs Claire Williams - 5/5/2021


"This development would urbanise North Barnes Lane and set an important precedent for extending the housing developments across the boundaries between Plumpton Green and East Chiltington.... If you determine the Nolands site now it may lead to a cascade of salami building sites." ...read more

Mr Zsolt Kerekes - 16/4/2021


"I've been living in Plumpton for 10 years with my family in a Victorian cottage. If this goes ahead we will move away from the village. Plumpton will not be a village anymore but a Town. New builds are extremely ugly and damage the countryside in every way."

Mrs Rebecca Duff - 12/5/2021


"This area most not be allowed to be developed in addition to the check-boxes it would introduce light pollution to the area."

Mr George Adsett-Knutsen - 22/4/2021


"This disproportionately large development pushes the Easterly boundary of all other housing in Plumpton Green. A new wildlife impact assessment would need to be completed given the increased sizeof the application especially given that it intersects an important corridor for wildlife."

Mr Jonathan Hayward - 22/4/2021


"This is outside the Neighbourhood Plan which was a democratic process and voted on by local people. This site was considered and rejected. This is a significant increase in the number of houses from the original application that was refused in February 2019. This should also be refused." Mr Jeremy Midmer - 19/4/2021


"Road congestion would increase dramatically, air pollution would increase, and traffic safety on Station Road impacted. The specified provision of "open space" is disingenuous: this development would cause a dramatic reduction in open space and public bridleways providing access to nature for local residents and citizens across Sussex."

Mr Matthew Hornby - 4/5/2021

.
developer documents (samples)

Editor:- the developer of Nolands plan LW/21/0262 is Fairfax Acquisitions Ltd.

They have submitted hundreds of pages of documents to support their planning application.

Here are a couple of related links to get acquainted with them and their concept in their own words.

www.fairfaxproperties.co.uk - Fairfax Acquisitions web site
www.plumpton-fairfax.co.uk - pre-consultation web site
Outline Planning Application - summary on LDC site

.

and now we interrupt this programme to bring you some important Greenwash

Paragraph 8.34 of the developer's outline planning application for LW/21/0262 says this...

the goblin view of this document"The Biodiversity Metric 2.0 Calculation has demonstrated that in terms of habitat units the proposed scheme results in an increase of 2.35 habitat units totalling a 10.50% net gain. The linear feature calculation for the proposed scheme results in an increase of 7.01 hedgerow units totalling a 63.79% net gain.

"This is because the Land at Nolands Farm, Plumpton Green - demolition of 2 existing dwellings, erection of up to 89 new dwellings including 40% affordable housing, village business hub, pedestrian, and vehicular access, open space, associated infrastructure, and landscaping. Planning Statement 63 scheme successfully retains nearly all the existing boundary features, and because the landscape planting scheme includes new species rich hedgerow planting across the Site."

....
Eco Towns, Garden Cities, Garden Villages - I thought I understood English but it was a Developer who spoke them. Any idea what they mean?
The simple words eco and garden when prefixed to village, town or city can add up to create semi-descriptive phrases which are power loaded with wildly different connotations depending on who you are and the context in which they are encountered.

So you can't blame developers sprinkling these wordplay sauces liberally around their prospectus chalkboard menus to make their crunchy concreting dishes appear less ashen on the palette de jour. It's only natural!

On the other hand - countryphiles and rural protection campaigners who are at the unsolicited receiving end of these communications commonly report nocebo effects - including headache, nausea and a bitter aftertaste - due to a belief that jumbling together good words to disguise nature harming projects doesn't make their digestive outcomes any sweeter.

I was looking for a learner's guide to help me understand DeveloperSpeak And in a few clicks I found a very helpful phrase book on www.designingbuildings.co.uk

Here are links to translations of some DeveloperSpeak phrases which we might encounter more often in upcoming discourses on wrongthingwrongplace.com

eco town / garden town / garden city / garden community / garden village

Other competing interpretations are available.

....
A CPRE view of such rural developments

"We were concerned that permission for this site would be a stalking horse for a much larger market home development once the principle of development there had been established."
From a briefing paper - the good and the bad about rural exception sites - by CPRE which talks about a clever tactic often used by land promoters to open up new "rural exception sites".

It begins with a promise to build a high percentage of affordable homes. Then, having established such precedents with a small scale plot, it's much easier for the same (or other) developers to come back with a follow up plan for a bigger project on a nearby plot.

CPRE goes on to say in their article...

"That is exactly what happened in Lower Horsebridge, a village of 60 homes near Hailsham, where a developer, having received permission for 32 affordable homes using the rural exception site argument, returned with a revised application for 110 mostly market homes and was given permission by Wealden District Council. ...read the article

here are some other related CPRE articles

Recycling our land: the state of brownfield - "The total area of unused brownfield land in Sussex is approximately the size of Littlehampton in West Sussex or Bexhill in East Sussex."

How land promoters exploit legal loopholes at the expense of communities and the countryside - "Land promoters activities lead to unnecessary work and expense for already hard-pressed local planning authorities, as well as anxiety and uncertainty for people who live in the communities affected."

.
Natural grassland covers 5.8% of UK land area (in forests and semi natural areas).

Artificial surfaces cover 8.3%. That's 43% more!
Those statistics on UK Land Use come from a study Review of Key Trends and Issues in UK Rural Land Use - Report to The Royal Society (157 pages pdf) (August 2020).