the Eton versus East Chiltington
the Nolands Farm digression - part 2
April 2021 a land promoter called Fairfax filed a formal planning application
to build a new access road and 89 houses in Plumpton on fields just west of
the Eton College new town site in North
Barnes Farm in East Chiltington. Fairfax's Nolands Farm plan had already
garnered 400 objections and the consultation period was still open when the LDC
planning office dropped a bomb shell interjection.
see also part 1
did Lewes planning really say that??
the North Korea mindset crisis
400 objectors must be wrongGlorious
Opinion outvotes all Plumpton peasants - puppet democratic leaders better
to keep mouths shut in future - stop wasting planner's time
then another 216 swiftly followed
Sunday, May 23, 2021 - On Friday evening (May 21) residents learned of a
worrying development in the Nolands planning application. A
document from LDC planning had appeared some hours before- which said -
in effect that LDC planning recommended that the application should go
ahead. This was while arguments for objection were still trickling in and it
was impossible that LDC could have paid any serious attention to what had been
said in the more than 400 objections received up to that morning. Furthermore -
residents were led to believe that if they had any further objections - these
had to made before midnight that same day (Friday).
36 hours since hearing that news - it was impossible to get any visibility of
what was going on. The LDC page showing comments for this scheme was blank
Friday night, and all day and night Saturday. I have screenshots from various
devices and times which prove this.
Sunday morning - 10.50am as I
write this the LDC comments page for Nolands shows that 180 additional
objections had been made since Friday evening - giving a total of
586 objections as of now. Not all of these are followup objections -
some are from new objectors for the first time.
The portal page
also shows the LDC support letter in a way which suggests it has been backdated
by several days. This is because the displayed comments on this page go through
a revision process - which adjusts the first-viewed date to the sent-date.
- the notice period given by LDC for followup comments (less than a day) is a
critical fault in the process by LDC planning which may provide grounds
for legal review and rebuttal if there is a need by residents to overturn an
adverse decision made by the committee.
As I stated in my first
objection to this - on April 16th - there are strong area wide democratic
planning arguments for postponing any decision on Nolands and wrapping it up in
the same review process as the Eton-Welbeck plot and others. More from me about
this on Monday.
Well done to everyone. It's disgraceful that the LDC
planning system acts in a way which ambushes, disregards and harms so many
PS - I've not yet read more than a handful of the 180 new
objections - so if I haven't quoted from yours - I'm sorry.
box below you'll see just some of the first couple of letters I dipped into
sum things up much better than I can do.
|an extract below from 180
additional objections made last Friday - in response to the "LDC opinion"
|"I am surprised that
planning officers employed by LDC have publicly expressed a professional opinion
on the application at this stage of the process. I had perhaps naively
thought that professional assessments from local authority officers would be
drawn up in the light of representations from the public, relevant authorities,
utility organisations etc. to guide the council on the merits of applications,
how they might be assessed against the planning framework, and on public
reaction. Until such time as all comments have been received and assessed,
how can professional planners be in a position to reach an impartial, rounded
view on which to base their advice to the council?" read
Holbeche - 11:05 PM, May 21, 2021|
|another extract below
from 180 additional objections made last Friday - in response to the "LDC
|I am writing to extend my
comments objecting to this application in the light of the
response from Robert King, an LDC planning officer, that recommends
acceptance of the application while acknowledging that it is in direct conflict
with the Lewes District Local Plan. It also cities the ways in which, in his
opinion, the application meets the sustainability criteria in LDC's Interim
Policy Statement for Housing Delivery.
This opinion appears to minimize the major disadvantages of this
application as evidenced by the 400 or more objections to it and the fact that
is in direct conflict with the most recent assessment of local housing needs
across Lewes District in the local plan. and that even more specifically for
Plumpton contained in the Plumpton Parish Neighbourhood Plan.
for 89 houses which, as Mr King acknowledges, are unlikely to be built
before the new local plan is expected to be in place at the end of 2023, and
probably not for some years after that. Thus this site would contribute little
towards the increased housing target faced by LDC.
In assessing the level of compliance of this application with the
sustainability criteria in the LDC's Interim Policy Statement Mr King's comments
ignore: - the scale and density of the development and thus its impact on the
character and size of Plumpton. The density is emphasized by the 'efficient use
of the land' as described by Mr King, which is no doubt a result of the land
promoter attempting to minimise the perceived impact of the site on existing
trees, hedges and green space.
This high density approach has also
resulted in a lack of visitor parking on the site which, according to the Sussex
comments, could lead to illegal parking, obstruction of the roads and
friction between neighbours. - the impact on vehicular traffic in Plumpton that
adding 87 households will have with all the vehicles channeled on and off the
site via a single road access onto Plumpton Lane - a road that already
experiences traffic jams and parking problems at peak traffic times.
figures used by the developer to dismiss such concerns are based on
inappropriate comparisons with urban areas. The number of road journeys per
vehicle and household are much higher in rural areas with limited local
employment opportunities and facilities as shown on the East Sussex in Figures
website previously cited by Dr John Kay in
objection:- the proximity of the housing in the proposed development to the
eastern boundary of Plumpton and the potential for coalescence with East
Chiltington that this affords.
Unlike Mr KIng in my view the balance of benefits and disadvantages of
this application suggest that it should not be granted approval read more
|Ms Janet Downes
- 10.56 PM, May 21, 2021|
|update:- Wednesday, May 26,
the PPC strikes back!
Among other things -
Plumpton Parish Council quotes
Lewes MP, Maria Caulfield - who
said in a recent interview (May 19th)
"I have had confirmation
from the Government department that there is no increase in housing numbers for
the local area and the housing need calculation is a guidance figure only and
not a target... In addition the current local plan still carries legal weight in
planning terms." read
from the start of Nolands|
frenemies at the gates of North Barnes LaneAs June 2021 began -
the Axis forces held both ends of North Barnes Lane
Fairfax at the
Eton-Welbeck at East Chiltington
10, 2021 - There has been a lot of confusion about the status of
Nolands Farm, Plumpton. For me too.
It's a bad enough scheme in
its own right for residents and visitors to Plumpton.
But in the
context of Eton's hostile new town offensive in East Chiltington - the
application by land promoter Fairfax - if granted - would move the boundary of
urbanisation significantly into North Barnes Lane - and provide a new route for
traffic from Plumpton Lane by the demolition of existing houses - which is an
integral part of this plan. See extracts from 616 objections so far and
about it here.
NB - Fairfax (the land promoter of Nolands
Farm) is a different company to Welbeck (land promoter for Eton
College's new town). The closeness of timing and sites was originally just a
coincidence. But Fairfax did reply in a site meeting question in April that
they had had talks about this site with Welbeck.
speculative developers have a common interest in smashing apart the limits of
the local plans in any way that they can. And it is reasonable to assume that
if they can colloborate as frenemies - while still maintaining their
own business and legal interests - then that's what objectors should assume will
It's not just objectors who can form alliances and groups.
Developers are clever too.
So - if you've been wondering why I
sometimes rabbit on about "Nolands" when you've come here to read
about the "Eton new town" - it's because they are closely linked plots
- dramatically in story telling terms and planningwarfarewise
- on the ground in real life too.
3 planning hotspots along North
Barnes Lane? - is discussed in my earlier blog
the simple ma££s
of planning gain
many more Sussex's can we afford to lose? |
GB lost an area of
grassland to urbanisation bigger than Sussex and Suffolk combined in just 25
years - according to a satellite based research study and report by UKCEH.
One cause? £2 million / acre gain in value by land promoters getting
planning permission to redesignate fields for houses in Sussex. ...read
more on facebook
|No Eton New Town - say signs in the lanes|
May 10, 2021 - Signs are appearing in the lanes around East Chiltington to
grab the attention of visitors to warn that this countryside will be lost
if Eton College makes any progress with its new town plan. ...read the
the simple ma££s
of planning gain
XXX [insert] Lewes planning person
1st sightings of
Armageddon - Eton's new town Etongrad