Angmering Forums
Angmering Forums
Home | Profile | Register | Active Topics | Members | Search | FAQ
Username:
Password:
Save Password
Forgot your Password?

 All Forums
 Specifically Angmering (Category)
 Angmering General - Forum
 Building Development in Angmering (Part 2)
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Next Page
Author Previous Topic Topic Next Topic
Page: of 10

neil
Forum Owner / Moderator

United Kingdom
2623 Posts

Posted - 06 Sep 2013 :  09:18:41  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As the postings in the original topic became so large, I've closed it and started this new "Part 2"

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 06 Sep 2013 :  09:50:04  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
A rumour circulating, albeit hard to believe, is that the Rugby Club land has already been sold to developers, from whom it now rents the facilities, until such time as an alternative location can be found.

Perhaps someone with knowledge of the actual situation could confirm or deny?
Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 02 Oct 2013 :  21:26:56  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Hi all

I thought you might be interested to read this:

http://regimechangeatarundistrictcouncil.wordpress.com/
Go to Top of Page

beernard
Average Member

United Kingdom
99 Posts

Posted - 08 Oct 2013 :  14:14:47  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I heard two chaps talking at the Rugby club on saturday saying the club had pulled out and are staying put? It may have just been chat.

BB
Go to Top of Page

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 08 Oct 2013 :  19:26:30  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
That would appear to have been confirmed. Pity no one from club itself could come out and make statement clarifying the position. Must model their communications strategy on that of Angmering Parish Council!
Go to Top of Page

beernard
Average Member

United Kingdom
99 Posts

Posted - 09 Oct 2013 :  09:58:01  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Is it that they have sold out to the building company or they have pulled out completely?

BB
Go to Top of Page

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 09 Oct 2013 :  22:04:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It would appear that it's the developers who are considering possible options.
Go to Top of Page

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 10 Oct 2013 :  17:04:40  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As possibly one of the "most vocal" referred to in APC's latest missive, they are to be commended for an imaginative, albeit self serving, piece of communication.

No reference, I note, to the planned but presumably aborted community meeting scheduled for September, and certainly no progress on the proposed meeting with SAV. But I guess SAV is also regarded as a bit of an irritant. Ignored if at all possible!

Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 14 Oct 2013 :  20:04:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Well well, here's a turn up for the books!

The Arundel & South Do0wns Conservative Association are distributing leaflets in the 5 Villages area with the message "SAY NO TO UNSUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT IN THE 5 VILLAGES".

See https://www.facebook.com/StopA29Bypass?ref=hl

I wonder if Angmering will be getting the same treatment?

So are ASDCA opposed to ADC?
Go to Top of Page

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 15 Oct 2013 :  07:58:46  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
This same leaflet was distributed by Councillor Cooper prior to the ADC election. Given his recent modification of views expressed at the time the cynic could see it as no more than a vote securing device.
Go to Top of Page

Nigel
Senior Member

United Kingdom
238 Posts

Posted - 15 Oct 2013 :  09:37:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Maybe it's time to take politics out of District Councils and vote for people instead of parties.
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 15 Oct 2013 :  10:44:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Now all you need is new people to stand, instead of the regular incumbents, who know they will be re-elected, as there is never any new competition.
Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 15 Oct 2013 :  20:35:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It must be part of that well known political formula

Before election = UNSUSTAINABLE
After election = SUSTAINABLE
Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 19 Oct 2013 :  19:35:33  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The SHMA Validation findings are published here:

http://objectionstoarunslocalplan.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/strategic-housing-market-assessment-shma-validation-findings-published/

Go to Top of Page

neil
Forum Owner / Moderator

United Kingdom
2623 Posts

Posted - 20 Oct 2013 :  07:33:14  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
So ADC's tame consultants have agreed the Council's original SHMA figures. Now isn't that surprising!!!

Go to Top of Page

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 20 Oct 2013 :  08:45:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
At very significant cost no doubt.
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 20 Oct 2013 :  09:37:03  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
If you ask the right question you will always get the answer you want.
Go to Top of Page

Robinf
Senior Member

105 Posts

Posted - 20 Oct 2013 :  09:42:48  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
quote:
Originally posted by Chuckle Brother

The SHMA Validation findings are published here:

http://objectionstoarunslocalplan.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/strategic-housing-market-assessment-shma-validation-findings-published/





I would like to be a fly on the wall of APC's next huddle when they discuss this report.

I hope they don't loose track of the fact that there are lies, damn lies, and bloody statistics.
Go to Top of Page

seagull
Average Member

United Kingdom
49 Posts

Posted - 23 Oct 2013 :  13:09:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Before the next Arun Local Plan committee meeting on the 31st October, shouldn't we be telling our District Councillors that Ford MUST be included for major housing development. If they want a 'Garden Village' development this is the ideal place. The infrastructure could be built at the same time. Angmering cannot sustain any more major developments.
Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 24 Oct 2013 :  21:16:50  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree. Ford has many advantages - Flood Zone 1, it can be drained into the River Arun, brownfield land, underutilised railway station etc.

The argument on housing numbers has been lost. The SE Plan, SHMA, SHMA “critical friend review” and now the SHMA validation can’t all be wrong. The debate must now move on - to consider which is the better option between a new settlement or village extensions.

It seems to me that, as a direct result of delays to the Local Plan, most communities across the district are now facing a tsunami of unwelcome planning applications.

Arun will now move forward as quickly as possible with its Local Plan and strategic allocations at Barnham, Eastergate, Westergate and Angmering will be rushed through because the council has pretty much lost control of its planning and needs to reassert control – quick! There is not much time for the action groups to develop an alternative strategy.

A swift decision to create a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford Airfield is now the only way to ease the mounting development pressure on all other communities across the district.

Should VAG and SAV now make the case for an alternative to village extensions? If they don’t do it no one else will do it for them!

I'm afraid it's political. Opposition members at Arun are supportive of this but not Conservatives. There can be no avoiding the politics.

The process has been prejudiced from the start – but nobody seems to be complaining - yet!

Has a new settlement been given proper consideration as an alternative to village extensions? Where exactly is the evidence? (if the Eco Town process is to be taken into account then we can easily prove that it was prejudiced – the council led a campaign against the Eco Town (it was a Labour initiative so the Conservatives felt obliged to smash it!) If it is not to be taken into account then where is the evidence for disregarding a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford?). The process followed by the council is open to challenge.

An increasing number of people across the district have come to recognise that public consultation responses, petitions, letters to the paper, speeches by opposition members will all be ignored. Conservative backbenchers all speak up when they are on their home patch but never say anything where it matters in the council chamber!

Many across the district will have difficulty with the politics of it all but unfortunately politics is at the heart of the problem. If we don't recognise and address the political problems then the alternative is to accept what Arun are about to serve up and hope that the Planning Inspectorate will see sense further down the line. In the current climate that is pretty unlikely!

People should be asking very loudly what the council's justification is for ignoring Ford.
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 25 Oct 2013 :  08:25:07  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
You can also be sure our parish councils are closely involved, hence the 'holding' note put out by APC last week, and it is getting even worse. In theory the Community Land Trust should have been up and running by now with proper trustees, instead we still supposedly have interim trustees, but even they do not know what is happening - it seems the chairman of the CLT is doing some deals, but who with and for what? - all this secrecy is doing nothing for the good of Angmering, and instead is reinforcing the views that we are being run by a mafia style operation. Just do as we say and don't argue or question us.
Go to Top of Page

Nigel
Senior Member

United Kingdom
238 Posts

Posted - 25 Oct 2013 :  10:26:02  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
As a former Parish Councillor, I feel I must defend the present Councillors for all the dedication and hard work they do to defend us from the evil developments and District Council decisions affecting our village. I also believe in Father Christmas and that Elvis lives in Bradford.
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 25 Oct 2013 :  13:16:58  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Anyone seen or even read the latest Arun Infrastructure plan - in the High Growth scenario for Angmering, they are now talking of 1500 dwellings for Angmering??????
http://www.arun.gov.uk/mediaFiles/downloads/37699985/Arun_IDP_Final_Draft.pdf
Go to Top of Page

seagull
Average Member

United Kingdom
49 Posts

Posted - 25 Oct 2013 :  16:55:45  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I completely agree with Chuckle Brother's comments. Politics, unfortunately, is at the heart of all these problems, plus the idiocy of Arun's planners. Everyone, who cares for Angmering, must lobby their District Councillors to get Ford included into the Local Plan and the numbers for Angmering reduced. SAV and VAG must do the same. Angmering Parish Council are against any major developments, as proved by their objections, but I suspect they don't want a similar situation as Bramley Green where they got b***** all from the developers. As for 1500 dwellings in Arun's infrastructure plan - they're off their trolley. It's about time the District Councillors and politicians listened to the man in the street. If they don't, they will be annihilated in the elections next year. Conservatives, you have been warned.
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 04 Nov 2013 :  11:45:32  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I know this is Littlehapmton - but it makes you wonder who is running Arun District Council, the elected councillors or the non-elected employees - what chance does anyone have of getting democratic decisions made, especially in development, where bribes, sorry 'enhancements' are a standard way of working? http://www.littlehamptongazette.co.uk/news/top-stories/latest/curtains-close-on-car-park-cinema-for-littlehampton-1-5635588
Go to Top of Page

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 05 Nov 2013 :  07:11:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Anyone who has witnessed first hand the political posturing at ADC will not be at all surprised by these outcomes. As for our Councillor Cooper, he gives the impression of being the Marie Celeste of local representation.

For a few weeks now the Parish Council have been given a soft ride, those critical amongst us hoping against hope that something concrete as to their views of development might emerge. But, as usual, silence. Apart from the note of some weeks back, telling us all what a good job they are doing, we are as much in the dark as before.

A community meeting was intimated for September. Why are we not surprised that didn't happen?

It's been said before, by myself and others, get a grip and start really serving your community.
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 05 Nov 2013 :  08:23:36  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
When your parish councillors are sworn to secrecy by the chairman of the council, you can bet your bottom dollar they are up to no good.
Go to Top of Page

derekdainton
deleted

579 Posts

Posted - 11 Nov 2013 :  16:31:20  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Encouraging to hear that allotment holders have rejected suggestion that they should move from their existing location to a new site, thus allowing further housing development. This despite rumours that the Parish Council supported such a move. If rumours correct, you yet again have to question whose side the Council is on? Does anybody really know?
Go to Top of Page

seagull
Average Member

United Kingdom
49 Posts

Posted - 23 Nov 2013 :  18:21:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Arun Local Plan Committee meet next Thursday, 28th November, to approve and reject housing sites that the Planners have put forward. 600+ for Angmering and 0 for Ford. Has anyone contacted any of our District Councillors to tell them that this is not sustainable and stupid? I have and I will be attending the meeting to support SAV. I urge
everyone to lobby their councillor, especially Paul Bicknell, who is on this committee, and complain about the Arun Planners attempts to concrete over Angmering. If the Conservative led council vote for this, don't forget there are District Council elections next May and we can vote them off!
Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 24 Nov 2013 :  20:54:25  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Don't forget Cllr Cooper is also on this committee!

If the two from Angmering work with the two from Barnham - that could be 4 votes.

It is also known that some of the other members of the committee support development at Ford - it's all to play for.

It's easier to persuade a small committee than the entire council! This could be the one and only chance.
Go to Top of Page

neil
Forum Owner / Moderator

United Kingdom
2623 Posts

Posted - 26 Nov 2013 :  20:12:05  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Planning Application A/134/13 is expected to be published in the press next week. This is an outline application for demolition of Broadlees in Dappers Lane (corner with Water Lane) and erection of up to 27 x 2 bed age restricted cottages, a 60 bed care home, laundry room, managers cottage and guest suite, and a core care block comprising up to 60 nursing beds with associated car parking - This is a Departure from the Development Plan.

For plans and other information, click on the following link and type the above mentioned Application number into the Reference box then press search button. Then click on the reference number when details come up and then "View Documents".

http://www.arun.gov.uk/main.cfm?type=APPLICATIONSEARCHP

Go to Top of Page

CatNip
New Member

United Kingdom
9 Posts

Posted - 27 Nov 2013 :  11:52:22  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Thanks to Neil for sorting out my registration and just wanted to add to his note above that the Planning Statement, referring to the "retirement village" suggests that there have already been two permissions granted for a Medical Centre on part of the site. before my time so don't know the ins and outs but the evidence gathered in respect of the Barratt application means that I'm confounded by the assertion that the bypass has led to a reduction in traffic on Water Lane
Go to Top of Page

neil
Forum Owner / Moderator

United Kingdom
2623 Posts

Posted - 27 Nov 2013 :  12:40:11  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
The Parish Council had discussions with the developer of the Broadlees site in Dappers Lane 5/6 months' ago - not in the public domain, of course. But I wonder how many of our councillors have known of this proposal?
Go to Top of Page

240felicia
Senior Member

172 Posts

Posted - 27 Nov 2013 :  15:48:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I believe that even if the council have had private meetings, they are legally obligated to provide access to minutes of any meetings to the public. If you have not requested them, do so, and if they fail to provide them, there are appropriate means of reporting the council or councilors if they are in breach of their code of conduct.
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 27 Nov 2013 :  16:01:44  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It is well known that a select few within the council have had many private meetings with ADC and others about development within the village, amongst other things, which are not only not minuted, but are also kept secret from other councillors - so the chances of finding out what they have been discussing are nil, as without minutes, they can claim the meetings never took place, long live open government and democracy!!!!!!!!
Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2013 :  10:55:08  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I have just seen the comment on the SAV web site about Councillor Cooper abstaining - I noticed this too!

If I recollect correctly the vote on Councillor Bicknell's amendment to include Ford in the strategic allocations was 5 for and 8 against/abstain.

My guess is that Councillor Cooper's reward will be a seat in East Preston or Rustington in 2015 - his work in Angmering is almost done.

Arun's councillors have to consider if there is a better option available to them than Barnham, Eastergate, Westergate, Angmering and Westbank. Did anyone other than Councillors Bicknell and Northeast speak for an alternative?

Neither the Barnham councillors nor the Villages Action Group seem particularly keen to make a credible case in favour of utilising the brownfield land at Ford. I'm afraid their weakness will have consequences!
Go to Top of Page

seagull
Average Member

United Kingdom
49 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2013 :  12:28:18  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I agree with everything Chuckle Brother says. I too, was at the meeting, and was very disappointed with Cllr Cooper.
So much for his manifesto.
I notice that no one mentioned Nick Herbert's email which was apparently sent to all committee members, see below.
What is the point of ADC rushing through a 'flawed' Local Plan, which doesn't include Ford but does include unsustainable housing figures for Angmering? Just to satisfy the developers, I presume. Lazy, incompetent
planners.

From: HERBERT, Nick
Sent: 28 November 2013 11:30
To: 'r.bower@btconnect.com'
Subject: FOR YOUR URGENT ATTENTION - TODAY'S PLANNING MEETING

Dear Ricky

Thank you for your e-mail of yesterday. I am writing to you ahead of your meeting later today (Thursday 28 November) where you will be considering gaps between settlements in the local plan and locations for housing supply.

I continue to believe that the Strategic Housing Market Assessment (SHMA) process adopted by the Council is flawed. Nevertheless, it having been accepted by the Sub-Committee, it is important not to confuse the figure arrived at for housing need with the housing numbers set in the plan. It is inherent to the principle of sustainable development that these can be different. The ORS report's claim that it validates a housing "target" for Arun in the range of 550-650 houses a year over 15 years is a fundamental error. The SHMA does not set the housing number in the Plan, and a consultancy employed only to validate the SHMA process has no business doing so. Equally, your Committee should not have simply translated this figure into a proposed housing number (580 a year over 15 years) for full Council to agree.

The National Planning Policy Framework is clear that a local plan CAN deliver a lower number of houses than the objectively assessed need "... if any adverse impacts of doing so would significantly and demonstrably outweigh the benefits ...." (NPPF, para 14 - see https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6077/2116950.pdf).

You acknowledged this at your last Sub-Committee meeting where you said:

"This, however, did not mean that Arun should not continue to be vociferous in its opposition to the numbers because sustainability was a key factor. When the strategic allocations were considered at the next meeting (28 November 2013) sustainability of the sites would be an important consideration and whether they could actually be delivered" (ADC Local Plan Sub-Committee meeting, 31 October 2013, para 9 - see http://www.arun.gov.uk/mediaFiles/downloads/24045137/Local_Plan_Agenda_28_11_13.pdf).

I would like to draw to your attention to Hastings Borough Council's plan. This proposed a housing number that was HALF their objectively assessed housing need. Significantly, the Planning Inspector has just passed the plan, specifically endorsing the lowered housing number, on the basis that protected landscapes and "exceedingly pleasant ... open land ... providing an integral part of an attractive rural setting" present "constraints [which] are valuable assets which give the Borough its unique charm, character and appeal" (Report, 21 October 2013, paras 55 and 56 - see http://www.hastings.gov.uk/environment_planning/planning/localplan/planning_strategy_examination/finalreport_2013/).

Clearly every area is different, and particular constraints may have applied in Hastings - although some, such as the limitations imposed on coastal towns and the prevalence of protected landscape, notably also apply to Arun. However, the key point is not to compare Hastings and Arun directly: it is that the principle that lower housing numbers CAN be set has been established and endorsed by the Inspectorate. This case was drawn to my attention by the Planning Minister when I raised these issues with him.

We are all well aware of the significant constraints to development in Arun, where a high proportion of the landscape is protected and there are already problems of inadequate local infrastructure, including flooding, congested roads, and pressure on local public services.

Prematurely conceding higher housing numbers (580 a year) is leading the Council towards choosing strategic sites, including two in my constituency - Angmering and Barnham/Eastergate - which would otherwise not be necessary. I continue to object strongly to these proposals. Angmering has already expanded substantially, and 500 further houses will put even greater pressure on infrastructure, especially local roads. A new settlement of 2,000 houses in the Barnham/Eastergate area will destroy the green gap between villages, create a suburban-style conurbation, and build on an area prone to flooding. Both proposed strategic developments are severely undermining neighbourhood planning and the public support which is necessary for this process.

I do not accept the your view, expressed in an e-mail yesterday (27 November) to my constituents, that strategic developments are necessary to produce sufficient funds for infrastructure - "tossing a rock in the planning pond". This is a circular argument, since developments on the scale proposed will themselves put considerable additional pressure on infrastructure. On this flawed logic, even greater housing numbers would be the solution to our infrastructure deficit in West Sussex. The supposed infrastructure gains from these strategic allocations are not properly quantified, and a cost-benefit analysis has not been undertaken.

I therefore strongly urge the Sub-Committee:

1. To set a realistic housing number which properly recognises local constraints on delivery.

2. To reject the 'strategic' housing allocations at Angmering and Barnham/Eastergate.

Clearly it is essential, if the Plan is to set a lower housing number than the assessed housing need, that the constraints on development are thoroughly evidenced. If the Sub-Committee has insufficient evidence available to take into account these constraints, then I strongly urge it to instruct a proper audit BEFORE a final housing number is set and the allocation of sites is made.

Should Arun District Council set a housing number which simply matches the level of assessed housing need, without properly taking into account the constraints on the delivery of these numbers, I believe the process will be judged to be flawed, and that the Plan will continue to face the strongest local opposition - including my own.

I would be very grateful if you would acknowledge receipt of this e-mail ahead of your meeting.

With kind regards.

Yours sincerely

NICK

THE RT HON NICK HERBERT MP
MP for Arundel & South Downs
House of Commons
London
SW1A 0AA
Tel: 020 7219 4080
Fax: 020 7219 1295
www.nickherbert.com



Go to Top of Page

Chuckle Brother
Average Member

United Kingdom
42 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2013 :  20:21:43  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
It's not only Angmering that has a problem with its councillors - I noticed that Cllr Dougal Maconachie was present (the third Barnham member) and that he didn't bother to exercise his right to speak up for his ward! Where do they find these councillors?

One of the things that concerns me is that because no councillor is making a compelling case for a new settlement on brownfield land at Ford it is, in essence, a one horse race!
Go to Top of Page

NickR60
Average Member

46 Posts

Posted - 01 Dec 2013 :  21:48:29  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
I too feel very let down by Cllr Cooper. He explained to me he was very much against development in Angmering when touting for votes - what has happened here? I have put this to him on Twitter but as yet haven't received a reply. The Conservative group on Arun DC needs to get its act together quickly and represent the people who voted them in to office. If they do not take proper account of local opinion in regard to planning the ballot box will see them replaced by independents.
Go to Top of Page

Crazypaving
Average Member

United Kingdom
51 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2013 :  13:41:26  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
Oh what mugs Cllr Cooper has made of those of us who elected him to ADC as the Angmering representative! The fact that he can't even be bothered to vote against the proposed housing numbers for Angmering says it all. If we can't trust those we elect to represent our views etc, who can we trust? Time to get out him and his Tory cronies out if only that were possible. Any time now the trees and hedgerows on Roundstone Lane will be mown down and our lives will be made a misery by hundreds of trucks clogging up the already gridlocked A259 and once completed in 7/8 years the developments will be full of "unwanteds" from South London and Worthing. Can't wait!
Go to Top of Page

luckyduck
Moderator

United Kingdom
169 Posts

Posted - 02 Dec 2013 :  15:31:13  Show Profile  Reply with Quote
By which time any of the councillors on either parish or district council, will have long since moved away, leaving us with the legacy of their selfish interests.
Go to Top of Page
Page: of 10 Previous Topic Topic Next Topic  
Next Page
 New Topic  Reply to Topic
 Printer Friendly
Jump To:
Angmering Forums © Neil Rogers-Davis, 2006 - present Go To Top Of Page
Snitz Forums 2000