FRIENDS OF BEECH HURST GARDENS.

Anyone who would like to become a member of this new group, which aims to preserve and conserve Beech Hurst Gardens in its present form, should contact Barbara Woods(see Who We Are page). Members are urgently needed.

NEW BLOOD

The Society has never pushed for membership but some of us have been at it for a long time and new blood is the best form of renewable energy. The subscription is £12 per annum. Pensioners, children, the unwaged and students can join for £10.00 per annum.

We have a monthly lecture, an annual meeting, an autumn supper. Isn't £12 cheap for a chance to join other nice people to protect the environment and get out of the house for our mutual pleasure.

Analysis of Answers to Questions in the Questionnaire distributed in Haywards Heath with reference to the Town Plan April 2006

General
We received 944 responses to our questionnaire distributed throughout the town. Of these 533 (56%) completed name and address and of these there were 121 completed by more than one person. If this proportion were assumed to be the case for the anonymous returns, it is probable that the Questionnaire represented the views of over 1,150 townspeople rather that the 944 documents received. So the results represent at worst just over 4% of the population (23,000) or more probably over 5%.

Almost all the respondents thought that provision for traffic and parking in the town was inadequate.

There was a very significant response (around three quarters) against:-

high rise building

development at the east of Muster Green and

the use of the Oaklands site for high density housing.

There was a similar majority for:-

the re-modelling/extension of the Orchards and

the re-development of Clair Hall on its present site.

The results were as follows:-

1. Station Square

This is seen as a cornerstone of the master plan. Proposed are high rise blocks and 850 car parking spaces for rail users only. Is this what you want?

Yes 37% No 58% No response 5%

2. Building Heights

High rise buildings of an average of 4-6 storeys with one of 10-12 storeys at the station.

Is this acceptable?

Yes 26% No 71% No response 3%

3. Clair Hall

It is suggested that Clair Hall is re-developed in the same or other location. Do you agree with -

a) Re-development

Yes 70% No 26% No response 4%

b) re-sited

Yes 14% No 71% No response 15%

4. Victoria Park

Is this what you want?

a) Opened to the East to give a square on Iceland car park area.

Yes 45% No 46% No response 9%

b) Removal of hedgerow along South Road, tree planting and a possible pavilion/café.

Yes 50% No 44% No response 6%

5. Muster Green

Is this what you want?

a) A 3 /4 storey hotel/conference centre/flats on the car park, island & existing roadway at the eastern end of Muster Green.

Yes 22% No 73% No response 5%

b) Replacing the gyratory road system with a T junction at the Star corner.

Yes 37% No 52% No response 11%

6. South Road(south side)/Sussex Road corner/Gower Road (north side)

Do you agree with - Demolition and replacement with 4-6 storey buildings, retail & residential.

Yes 35% No 60% No response 5%

7. The Orchards

Do you agree with - Remodelling and enlargement of the Orchards.

Yes 71% No 26% No response 3%

8. Parking

Most town centre car parks are lost to redevelopment but some spaces provided within new buildings? Is this acceptable?

Yes 22% No 70% No response 8%

Would you like to see car parking bridging the railway lines?

Yes 58% No 31% No response 11%

9. Traffic

Do you think car parking & road space is adequate given increased traffic from 1600 houses to the south of the town (Bolnore Village) & new residential/commercial high-rise blocks within the town?

Yes 6% No 91% No response 3%

10. Oaklands (MSDC/WSCC Offices)

May be relocated (possibly to Clair Hall site) and Oaklands used for high-density housing.

Is this acceptable?

Yes 18% No 79% No response 3%

The original data from which these results are compiled is available for inspection. Please contact The Chairman, Haywards Heath Society, 1 The Spinney, Haywards Heath RH16 1PL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is our response to The Mid Sussex District Council following our scrutiny of the Master Plan for Haywards Heath

Response to Haywards Heath Town Centre Master Plan
Supplementary Planning Document
General:

It would be very much appreciated if the jargon could be removed from this document so that future revisions are written in unadulterated English that may be understood by everyone. For example, in the Objectives: “linear town”, “public realm”, and “sustainable town” have little intrinsic meaning. This would remove the necessity of having a Glossary of terminology and reduce the length of text by 3 pages – approx. 6%.

It is hoped that the typing errors and incorrect spelling do not reflect the attention paid to formulating the plan and the mis-spelling of St Wilfrid’s does not indicate the general depth of research.

Executive Summary.

Revitalising Tradition
Objective 1

“ …. with appropriate height and scale.” These proposals do not achieve this.

Objective 2

To be realistic, given the rural nature of the surrounding area, visitors’ only option will be to travel by car.

Objective 4

Needs to include the legacy of Victorian tree planting and other buildings and town features that are included in the Society’s “List of Places to Cherish” already supplied to Thornfield and included with this submission. The need to emphasise this is illustrated by the inclusion for development of the South East Water building in Church Road, one of the finer buildings in Haywards Heath.

Objective 5
To be added … “and to fulfil the statutory provision for social housing.”

1.0 Introduction.

Study Process.

The local community was not included in this process, evidenced by Mike Bright’s comments that the Health Check Group, representing a wide range of the community who spent hundreds of hours in their deliberations, received no response from MSDC and their views were ignored in the SPD.

It would be appreciated if the “stakeholders” could be identified.

Who will carry out the regular monitoring of the SPD and SA and does SA mean Sustainability Appraisal?

National & Regional Policy

While the plan directs itself to the principles in West Sussex Structure Plan policies, Policy 9 states that “Development within existing town, village, district and neighbourhood centres should be permitted provided that it helps them to adapt and reinforces their vital role in meeting needs acting as the focus for………………… the integration of transport.”. We do not believe that the Plan addresses this.

Local Policy

1st bullet point.

To be added – This is to incorporate sufficient parking for commuters and other users.

3rd bullet point.

To be added – with adequate parking and ensuring that the older buildings of quality remain untouched or converted rather than re-developed.

2.0 Context: Haywards Heath Town Centre

1st paragraph: The Relief Road will provide none of the relief the traffic survey carried out in 2004 (Betteridge, Turner and Partners Transport Assessment for Bolnore Village September 2004) indicated.

At the time of the “relief” road planning the Foxhill Association carried out a traffic survey which assessed an average of 12 ½ % of traffic along South Road was through traffic. We see no reason to expect this to have changed.

In addition, West Sussex County Council assessed that 1/3 of traffic along Franklynn Road was through traffic. As this is the next section of the A272 and that the local traffic would in part take Sussex Road, it appears to be consistent with Foxhill’s findings. It would seem quite reasonable to make a conservative estimate of through traffic accounting for 20% of the total traffic along South Road. The report assesses a reduction in through traffic of 60%, but as we have shown ,through traffic only accounts for 20% of the total, this means a reduction of 12%. This reduction will be much more than swallowed up by general increase in traffic, but even more by the traffic generated by the large number of new homes having been built since 2004, currently being built and planned for the future.

History.

In fact 25 buildings remain “from these early times”. There is no substance to the legend of Jack Hayward and it only seems to be a recent invention as no written record of the legend exists from earlier times. This irrelevance has no place here.

Character
Ease of Movement

“Parking for the main shops is also problematical.” Very true but how does this proposal address this issue?

See our comments earlier about the effectiveness of the Relief Road (2.0).

Legibility

This paragraph we consider is ill conceived, ill informed and ill defined.

Quality of the Public Realm

Street parking is now regulated by MSDC.

Diversity

Clair Hall should be improved or replaced on its present site with adequate parking, which will maintain its excellent links to public transport, particularly the railway station.

3.0 Strategic Proposals

“Revitalising Tradition”

These proposals give the impression that the tradition will be replaced by a “flat pack town” which is totally divorced from tradition.

Objective 1 - To promote the development of a linear town structure and consolidate future development around three distinctive nodes, with appropriate height and scale.
Issues
This “square”, or more accurately described as a triangle, is an unsuitable use of space and will not in itself provide a “heart”.

Gateways and Legibility

Figure 6 Gateways

This term is misleading and inappropriate in the context of Haywards Heath. It has been used for three totally different purposes.

Station Gateway
We agree with these comments. The poor facilities and surrounding area are attributable to under and ill-advised investment by, the rail authorities and commercial developers. It has nothing to do with “town pride”.

Muster Green Gateway

Trees at the eastern end of Muster Green provide an attractive backdrop and enclosure to the open space of Muster Green. The buildings proposed are not a “limited intervention” and do not enhance the Green.

Sussex Road Gateway

We agree with this concept but believe that much greater consideration must be given to its implementation.

A New Enhanced Town Structure

The opening paragraph is confused and illogical. It makes no contribution to the understanding of the Document.

The first bullet point needs amending as follows: “ …….for both commuters, short stay, office users, casual users and residents.

The second bullet point contains a reference to “new residential development in the Broadway. Fig 3 indicates no development in the Broadway. What is actually intended? The Broadway should maintain a mixed element of use.

We broadly accept the comment in the third bullet point about the shopping quarter, but disagree with some of the detail that occurs later.

Station Quarter

We support the development of a cultural quarter specified in the first paragraph and hope this opportunity is seized enthusiastically.

In the second paragraph, it is not the absence of a strategic plan that has meant no progress has been made with the development of this site, but the lack of any developer being identified. As well as contributing to “a new commercial space” this should also include cultural activities.

In the third paragraph, “car parking should be reprovided” may be misleading as adequate car parking must be provided for the users specified earlier as well as the users of the cultural facilities. The end of the paragraph needs to be amended to ……the new pedestrian route between the station, the Heath and the shopping area.

A further paragraph is required: We must not lose sight of the opportunity to use the contours of the land to provide parking at levels below the level of surrounding land and maintain the treescape which defines Haywards Heath.

The Broadway
The first paragraph needs clarification. It mentions “Poor quality commercial accommodation” but does not specify what is proposed and exactly where. The phasing appears to include Church Road and the demolition of the South East Water and former Seeboard buildings which are amongst the finest buildings in the town. Any residential development in this area should be limited to conversion of these buildings. Most of Church Road and Heath Road are residential with a high proportion of elderly residents. For this reason it is totally unsuitable for and should not be considered for part of a one-way traffic system.

The enclosure of Muster Green is completely unacceptable and unnecessary given the delightful tree screen at the eastern end. We object to any proposal to build over Dolphin Road and the adjacent car park, as there is no obvious solution to the traffic movement issues it creates.

We support building over the railway with access at the point where the railway enters the tunnel, onto the eastern end of Muster Green North.

Shopping Quarter
The first paragraph states “ …… further work needs to be undertaken to investigate …..”. In the light of this it is surely illogical to consider proposals, as they must be ill considered. Because of the lack of work done to date it is difficult to justify the proposals for the large-scale redevelopment of South Road and the Orchards. Creating a canyon of South Road would appear to be the outcome of the proposals in Figure 9, which would result in one enormous wind tunnel.

We agree that “South Road has the potential to be a very attractive shopping High Street” but the volume of traffic in South Road will not be reduced by the completion of the “relief” road. The proposal seems to assume that the 60% in through traffic is significant. As previously stated (see para. 2.0 Context: Haywards Heath Town Centre), this is not the case as only 20% of the total traffic is through traffic, which gives a resulting reduction of 12%. This small reduction will be eroded by the general increase in traffic, but will be completely swamped by the additional traffic generated by the house building activity carried out since this survey in 2004 and planned for the future.

The proposed Victoria Square (Triangle) development is window dressing with no real purpose, to disguise further destruction and large-scale development.

We agree with the last paragraph relating to Sussex Road.

Building Height and Scale
We disagree that “Haywards Heath could accommodate some taller buildings”, as these would destroy the character of our country town and do nothing to revitalise tradition which is a fundamental of this planning document. A crucial element in revitalising Haywards Heath is keeping the existing townscape/treescape, which helps to retain the human scale which has been a prime attraction of the town to so many people.

We support the last paragraph of this section respecting residential amenity.

Objective 2 – To improve levels of accessibility and permeability within the town centre by providing safe, direct and attractive routes and by promoting new developments that encourage walking, cycling and the greater use of public transport

Issues
Once again the statistic regarding traffic in South Road has been misused. As already stated (see para. 2.0 Context: Haywards Heath Town Centre), it is only a reduction of 60% of through traffic, which accounts for 20% of the total traffic giving a net reduction of 12%. Expected general traffic increase will absorb this saving but there will be a heavy increase as a result of 1650 new dwellings in Bolnore Village and a further 350 or so on hospital land. This increases the number of dwellings in the town by approximately 10%. Also, given that there are no community facilities in these areas, traffic movements will be much greater than have been allowed for.

Whilst we applaud the aims of Objective 2, the proposals set out to achieve them are fundamentally flawed in that they are based on incorrect and outdated traffic assessments relating to the effect of the “relief” road. This will have a knock-on effect on the traffic movements to and from the station and through the town and particularly on the provision of bus services.

We agree with the points made in the last two paragraphs. There needs to be a consolidated, planned transport system with information easy to digest and freely available to all potential users.

Development Guidance
Relating to the last two paragraphs, Church Road should not be included in a shopping circuit/loop. The District and Local Plans for Haywards Heath encompass provision for better pedestrian and cycle access along the Broadway between the station and shopping core. What is not needed is some esoteric route involving Church Road and St Wilfrid’s Way as appears to be suggested.

Objective 3 – To upgrade the public realm throughout the town centre including maximising the opportunity arising from the reduction in traffic on South Road to create pedestrian friendly streets.
The objective is fundamentally flawed in that there is an expected increase in traffic on South Road. The aim is laudable but please note here our comments on traffic reduction in our earlier comments viz.

2.0 Context: A New Enhanced Town Structure - Shopping Quarter

However, the text seems to lose sight of its objective because of its convoluted language. We do not believe that pedestrian movement will be either encouraged or facilitated by “The public realm needs to be properly enclosed by a continuous built form with a common building line”.

South Road

Once again the traffic statistics have been mis-used (see para. 2.0 Context: Haywards Heath Town Centre). There is NO possibility of achieving a 60% reduction in traffic in South Road, indeed, any reduction at all is unlikely. To make your proposals dependent on this erroneous statement only serves to cast doubt on the credence of other proposals.

New Spaces
The statement that Haywards Heath has no civic space is incorrect and therefore the creation of artificial spaces as envisioned is unnecessary.

Station Square / Victoria Square/Triangle
These airy statements are not worthy of the plan and this Utopian vision is unlikely to be realised

in practice.

Objective 4 – To recognise and cherish Haywards Heath’s character and key assets of Victoria Park, Muster Green, The Heath and the Broadway.

The restaurants and bars are not an inherent part of Haywards Heath or for that matter any town. However we would like to see them remain and possibly be supported by extended mixed use.

Built Form
The first sentence is an entirely subjective viewpoint. We believe that “… high quality contemporary design that could forge a new physical identity …” will not preserve the character of the town or reflect the strong community pride found in the town.

The second paragraph in this section we found ludicrous. It consists of incomprehensible and indefinable jargon.

Green Spaces
Muster Green is currently perfectly accessible.

Replacement of the hedge bordering Victoria Park in South Road with trees to provide access is a contradiction as the steep bank would remain a barrier to accessibility. The 1M high hedge gives significant environmental advantages – viz. traffic noise, fumes, obscuring traffic from the park, health and safety, view towards the Downs, or would a line of metal safety barriers be preferable? However, it would be enhanced by trees interspersed along its length, which may also be used to define entry points to the park at each end, and in the middle. It should be noted that a row of trees already exists along the footpath a few yards south, in Victoria Park.

Opening up The Heath would mean the destruction of trees essential to the charm of the town. It is, remember, the one remaining part of The Heath, which has remained semi-wild throughout the centuries – a feature rarely found in other towns of similar size and it is imperative that it is retained.

We support the concept of a pavilion in Victoria Park on a site, adjacent to the children’s play area and shops. This could provide supervised toilet facilities and café and advantage should be taken to provide changing facilities for sports activities.

Comment has already been made in Objective 3 – Pedestrian link to the Heath and Objective 1 – Station Quarter about the pedestrian link from the station to the Orchards Shopping Centre.

Objective 5 - To provide high quality and dense mixed use development within the town centre that helps to increase and diversify its resident and workplace populations and in particular to include affordable housing within residential developments to help promote the social and economic sustainability of the town.
The concept of high quality and dense mixed-use development is perhaps a contradiction in terms and therefore difficult to achieve.
Affordable housing – does this phrase include “social” housing? Our understanding is that these terms are different.

Affordable housing is subsidised housing for key workers to purchase or part purchase, while social housing is housing built for housing associations and similar organisations for rental.

Issues
Could we correct the view that there is very little residential accommodation around the station and cite Charter Gate, Gordon Close, Winnals Park, Great Heathmead, Radnor House and Harlands House while Clair, Arlington, Bodiam and Jireh Courts which are within a few paces of the station.

The town would benefit from proper surveillance and both the station and its parking areas lack the presence of real living personnel connected with the owner of these “utilities”.

Bullet points:

1. We would approve of residential accommodation if purpose built or carefully converted but not at the expense of demolishing Gower Road or constructing 3 or 4 storey blocks in South and Haywards Road.

2. We would agree only if the lower storeys were built to provide an adequate amount of public and resident’s car parking.

3. We consider that this land should be available only for parking, with possibly a multi-storey construction part-concealed underground.

4. If this was widely approved, we would support the proposal to provide apartments over the shops in the Orchards; but Church Road must remain totally residential.

5. We agree with this point.

Paragraph after Bullet Point 5.

It seems to us that to plan to relax standards that are in themselves laudable is a ridiculous thing to do at this early stage. Such actions may become necessary later, but all possible ways of avoiding this should be exhausted first.

6. We query where a site could be found for bungalows to be constructed, or is this whole section just paying lip service to the Housing Study quoted?

7. Again we would want the inclusion of social housing and want to know the proportion.

8. How will this be achieved if not in the categories above? Since most accommodation mentioned would be at or above first floor level lifts will need to be supplied as a basic requirement.

Oaklands Campus
At this stage any comment regarding Oaklands is irrelevant and should form no part of this document. It only serves to distract from the points at issue and we would wish to see it removed so that nobody is tempted into a “kite flying” exercise. In any event, Oaklands is an unsuitable location for high-density housing development. Its continued use for community purposes is more appropriate.

Commercial
We would accept hotel/conference facilities on the station site but not adjacent to Muster Green or on the “Star” roundabout island.

The suggestion made regarding the need to increase the range of commercial accommodation needs to be carefully assessed in the light of changing business trends with increasing use of technology, given the existing commercial premises available.

Leisure

We support the increase in a range of leisure facilities with provision for young people. Clair Hall is a widely used facility. Its location is ideal. Sufficient parking adjacent to the station site must meet the requirements for Clair Hall. We accept the need for re-development to encompass the improved facilities and would wish to see conference facilities included rather than on another site such as Muster Green. A replacement facility must be available during the period of re-development.

Community

The library has recently been doubled in size and is adequate for the foreseeable future and to propose a building of 900Sq M is unnecessary. With respect to the location of Age Concern, if this is not to be located at the Clair Hall site, we would support it being on the Oaklands Campus site together with the CAB and other community facilities.

Adequately maintained public toilets should be sited in both the station area and South Road/Victoria Park.

Objective 6 - To create opportunities for new retail and associated parking within the town centre that dramatically improves the quality and offer of the shopping experience.

Issues

New Retail

We support an improved range of shopping facilities in the town either by some extension of the Orchards or enhancement of South Road shopping environment.

We think that demolition of Gower Road houses is totally unwarranted, solely with the purpose of providing retail premises with large floor space.

We dispute the comment that many of the other shopping units in the Orchards “are small, in some cases little more than kiosks”. This is patently just not true. Most of the units are a suitable size for independent retailers, which is exactly what they are. We are only aware of one “kiosk” which is a shoe repairer and seems suitably sized for that purpose.

Independent Shops

The independent shops are critical in ensuring the town’s competitiveness and distinction from surrounding towns. We need a good mix of local independents and extension of this should be encouraged wherever possible in the designated retail areas.

Parking

The issue of parking is ineffectively dealt with in the proposals, as it is not clear what is intended. The use of jargon phrases such as “structured car parking” appears designed to confuse and only serves to hide the fact that there are no specific policies or proposals. The distinction between public car parking and parking for residential/business occupants needs to be more clearly defined with some definition of the number of parking places to be provided. The only reference in numerical terms is the 850 places specified for Network Rail for commuter use. A visit to the existing car park will demonstrate the inadequacy of this number, which is therefore totally inadequate for future use.

We support the concept of a decked car park over the railway cutting.

We totally endorse the principle of “a co-ordinated approach to the management of all the town’s main public off-streets car parks”. We believe that the availability of short-term parking, free of charge, is essential within the parking provision.

Much has been made of pedestrian movement around the town but little consideration seems to have been given to cyclists. While it is not realistic to expect everyone to leave their cars at home, walking and cycling should be encouraged.

Objective 7 To create a sustainable town.

The first paragraph defines sustainable development as “Development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.”.

This definition is not met in that the present needs are not quantified, as there has been no study. Future needs are not ascertainable and present plans leave little or no scope for further development unless there is massive demolition or green field sites are extensively used. This contradicts the principle of sustainability.

In the second paragraph we ask if we really want new development or, more specifically, is it needed?

From “However, it is important that …” to “… set out in Objectives 1-7.” we find totally incomprehensible.

We agree that the bus services need improvement but train services, we understand, are at their maximum potential.

No new affordable or social houses are planned, only flats which are largely unsuitable for families. We fail to see how this will provide “social cohesion”.

Relating to the third paragraph, it seems unlikely that developers would voluntarily incur additional costs for measures beyond the regulations. Should not mention be made here of water supply/drainage/foul water disposal?

We have seen little evidence of this partnership in decision making to date (reference all the work of Mike Bright’s Health Check Group having been ignored), so is it likely that developers will perform better? The importance is stressed, but no means of ensuring its effectiveness is even considered.

It is not clear who will provide the “adequate resources” which we agree are necessary for the high design standards and construction. We question whether high rise flats are a correct response to the “site context”.

Development Guidance

The Development Guidance in this section pays lip service to almost every government policy imaginable but is not compatible with many of the proposals set out in the SPD – for example high rise flats.

4.0 Implementation Strategy

There needs to be some explanation of the initials used to abbreviate the Lead Agents referred to in the Phasing Section.

It is accepted that a twenty-year implementation cycle, specified in the Executive Summary, is a reasonable objective rather than the ten years indicated by the phasing section. However, the need which has been clearly shown and we understand has been accepted by MSDC, is for much further detailed discussion with the community and people/businesses likely to be affected by many of the proposals. The impact on the town as a whole must be considered before the Plan is developed into Planning Applications. It is vital that infrastructure precedes other development. We must learn from the Bolnore Village fiasco.

The proposed phasing as set out on pages 61 – 65 has to be radically reassessed. The phasing section apart from one or two glaring errors which do not refer to Haywards Heath, also appears to introduce proposals on a formal basis which are not properly articulated in the SPD itself. In particular, the proposal for re-development of the SouthEast Water/Seeboard offices in Church Road needs to be much more carefully considered. The two buildings involved should not be summarily demolished but considered for possible renovation if changed to residential use. In this context it needs to be reinforced that Church Road is already almost entirely residential in character with considerable proportion of retirement dwellings. It and Heath Road must not be considered for greater traffic use.

Reverting to the general issue of Phasing, this should be extended to later years to take account of the extended discussion period now accepted by MSDC beyond the Statutory consultation period. This is not to say that discussion and thereby decision making can be indefinitely open-ended. However it is clear that there has not been sufficient democratic process.

The Haywards Heath Society April 2006

Response to the South East Plan

The Committee of this Society have considered the South East Plan as shown on the Internet and and its objectives and would like to comment as follows.

Core Report
The South East is described as a vibrant and successful region. In seeking to maintain and develop its further potential, however, there is a real danger that whilst economic growth is encouraged, the quality of life of those contributing to its success is under severe threat from over-development coupled with under-resourcing in the short and long term. Long term prosperity requires adequate infrastructure, social provision and protection of the environment for urban and rural communities in equal measure. Planning for and provision of these should precede development. Increased housing does not automatically equate with increased well-being.

We acknowledge that the South East Plan, as presented, is intended as a framework. However, we would suggest that considerable work has still to be done before implementation. Overall the findings of the independent analysis hold true and indicate the many deficiencies which must be addressed before implementation.

i) In particular the primary need for in-built sustainability is not fully considered, as pin-pointed in the 9th & 10th bullet points of the analysis (p. 20-21).

Almost all the proposed policies fail to satisfy the criteria in the definition in 1.2 (p 08-09). Population growth will not stop in 2026.

ii) Although recognised as a problem, the lack of planned co-ordination/integration between the objectives leaves room for damaging conflict.

iii) Limited consideration has been given to some major issues such as health and crime.

iv) Despite its apparently bustling economy, there is no indication of how the region is to pay for necessary improvements to meet the increasing demand.

We agree with the spirit and intentions of most of the Objectives but respond in detail as follows.

Objective 01 To ensure everyone has the opportunity to live in a decent sustainably constructed and affordable home.

(i) In establishing a new build figure and rate for the plan period sustainability must be the key consideration. The South East is already failing to meet some of the needs of its existing population and any increase in the yearly target figures will undoubtedly reduce the quality of life in the short and long term. As a result the desired inward investment is likely to fall and the economy suffer.

(ii) The effect of natural population expansion from future generations and increased longevity must be taken into account now when considering housing figures and all other integrated objectives (infrastructure, transport, employment etc.).

(iii) There is a severe shortage of affordable housing for essential workers in both public and private sectors in the South East. The resultant lack of key-workers leads to cuts in services and a reduction in quality of life generally.

(iv) An overall suggested percentage of affordable housing in development terms takes no heed of the size and diversity of the Region or the changing demographics year by year.

(v) A total reappraisal of the methods of ascertaining need and ensuring adequate provision, including monitoring and housing surveys, in both public and private sectors seems essential.

(vi) It is suggested more local and central government intervention, using tax incentives, grants etc. might help to avert an impending crisis by encouraging house sharing/division and improvement and demolition of poor housing stock to allow rebuilding in higher densities.

(vii) Above all, infrastructure must be a priority and in place before housing growth.

Objective 08 To improve accessibility to all services and facilities.

The present activities of facilitators would indicate that this objective will be difficult to achieve without their full co-operation. The loss of post offices and local hospital services are just two examples of recent downward trend in provision.

Objective 10 To improve land use through the re-use of previously developed land and existing buildings and encourage urban renaissance.

Brown field sites suitable for re-development are of limited number in the South East. If the proposed rate of development is to be met it is inevitable that green field sites will be used but there is also a threat of over-development to meet demand. This would seriously damage the diversity of the environment, one of the region’s greatest assets. The impact on the desirability of the South East as a place to visit, live in and work would be detrimental to the economy. Greater creativity is required in re-using/updating existing land use and housing stock.

Objective 13 To conserve and enhance the region’s biodiversity.

Environmental appraisals must be heeded. Not only should the South East ensure the conservation of ancient woodland, but greater efforts should be made to plant in new areas, possibly with grant aid.

Objective 15 To reduce road congestion and pollution levels by improving travel choice and reducing the need for travel by car/lorry.

This is a laudable target but unrealistic unless improved infrastructure and more innovative incentives are provided prior to further development and to meet increased/changing need. A full assessment is required to include any adverse impact on the natural environment.

All new development should be designed and located to minimise the need to travel as much as possible.

Objective 17 To reduce waste generation and disposal and achieve the sustainable management of waste.

It is suggested that target figures should be higher, particularly given the implications of the proposed further development in the South East.

Objective 18 To maintain and improve the water quality of the region’s rivers and coasts and to achieve sustainable water resources management.

There is clearly a conflict between expanding population and the finite water resources which, in place s in the South East are already stretched beyond capacity during periods of drought. It is vital that adequate water supplies and other essential utilities to meet present and future demand are provided before additional development takes place.

Major investment will be required and a proportion of the prohibitive costs should be paid from central funds.

Objective 19 To increase energy efficiency and the proportion of energy generated from renewable sources in the region.

The targets are supported but, again, considerable investment will be required at high cost.

Objective 20 To ensure high and stable levels of employment so that everyone can benefit from the economic growth of the region.

There is an essential balance to be struck between housing development and

employment opportunities, particularly bearing in mind the need for

infrastructure and protection of the environment. Some flexibility in targets

will be necessary, given other issues which will impact on supply and

demand, such as relocation to the Far East.

Finally we fully endorse the principles of sustainable development set out in Fig. 3 of the Core Report and the points made in the final paragraph 1.5.1 (page 12).

We are glad to have the opportunity to comment on this stage of the Plan and would be grateful to be informed of progress and any further consultation.

David Jarman.

Chairman.