There have been several comments posted about the proposed new development on the field East of Chichester Road by the Wave roundabout and between Park Lane and Manor Road. I copy below a report of a meeting between CAODIS and Ben Cooper the chairman of Selsey Town Council Planning Committee and Make Beal the chairman of Selsey town council. Report by Tim Kinross on the CAODIS meeting with Selsey Town Council Wednesday June 25th. 730pm . The notes are based on my jottings , memory afterwards and have been corrected and clarified by Ben. Present Mike Beal, chairman of Selsey town council with Ben Cooper chairman of the Selsey Neighbourhood Planning Group Present from Caodis. Harold and Glenda Baum, Linda Brown, Christopher Dean, Pamela Howard and Tim Kinross. The meeting started with Tim congratulating Ben and Mike for producing an amazingly detailed and carefully crafted Neighbourhood Plan which had clearly involved its creators with a very great amount of time and effort. Tim then asked Ben about several aspects of the NP that did not match the Local Plan being prepared by CDC. The NP calls for a strong focus on the High street with a concentration of its retail units between Malthouse Road and West Street but at the same time allows for the creation of a major secondary focus with the proposed new Asda supermarket, hotel and garage by the Wave roundabout. Ben said say that the creation of so many low skilled jobs was to be viewed as a benefit of edge of town developments. He also said that recent Government policy change was to allow small shops to revert to residential use without need for planning permission As examples of businesses who were showing that Selsey High St could be a destination In particular he singled out Andy Short’s Selsey Off Licence in the High Street . Even off the High St Endicotts bakery on the East Beach was highly successful. Endicotts invariably having a queue despite being next door to a supermarket. Ben said that the unemployed in Selsey were mostly low skilled and that to encourage ,say, a science park employing highly skilled labour would not give employment to local residents but draw in skilled people from outside.. He said that the survey of local people showed preference for a scheme with a filling station but Waitrose did not want to be next to a filling station. However ASDA were interested and so ASDA were preferred by the developer . He also made the point that ASDA had an in-house training scheme and that a 16 yr old Selsey born shelf stacker could, if sufficiently blessed with talent, rise to be Chief Executive of WALMART, Asda’s parent, in the USA. The hotel , also needing local low skilled labour, would have a start by Langmead reserving 1000 person nights per year. Ben surprised us with the scale of the turnover of the neighbouring salad packing factory business. £150,000,000 per year no less. Glenda Baum queried the housing estimates as not allowing for the possibility of the salad factory being torn down and replaced with houses. Ben said that Langmead regarded the factory as central to their operations and had recently spent considerable sums to its commercial development with more to follow., Linda Brown made the point about the schools being full and Ben explained that despite some local pinch points there was capacity) and that schools drew a capitation allowance based on the local population numbers and so were funded to build or expand schools as required to meet local need. The principle of capitation also applied to GP surgeries meaning that nether overfull schools or surgeries were an argument against development since new development would bring from central government additional funds to meet the additional need. However the availability of funds was not necessarily a solution to the problem of getting a dopctor’s appointment as it down to the practices to decide how to staff themselves and it was this that leads to issues with getting appointments, NOT the population or population growth.. Dentists were another matter and the Park Farm Langmead scheme allowed for a clinic. Christopher Dean made the point about the road being overloaded. Ben replied that as a B road it was not yet, officially at its rated capacity and that to be careful what one wished for since uprating it to an A road, by improving it, would then substantially increase its rated capacity so allowing even more building. Tim Kinross quoted a recent CDC planning decision refusing an application for a Bracklesham development by Wates based, in part, on congestion at the Selsey Tram and Stockbridge roundabouts. Ben thought that that argument might not work on appeal as officially congestion at a junction was measured by how long, on average, it took a vehicle waiting at the white line to join the main road and took no account of the possibly three mile queue behind. Ben said that the Langmead Park Farm extended scheme had an advantage to Pye’s Drift Road scheme as Langmead owned much land adjacent to the B2145 and was willing to offer land for smoothing out Ferry Corner and for extra bus stop pulling off places. Ben said that the Highways authority were also giving consideration to by-passing Ferry Corner with a one way southbound carriageway to the EAST leaving the present two road in place bur as one way SoOUTH,. . Tim thought that the need to cross the water there would be hugely expensive and Ben said the RSPB might have issues too. Tim asked Ben about the mention in the NP of widening the entrance to Park Lane to provide “access”. Park Lane, he said, had always previously been considered sacrosanct. Ben said the NP allowed for possibility of improving Park lane to allow access direct from the B2145 to the Pye Drift Road site and this would involve hardening it as far only as Manor Lane.. Ben thought that access to the Drift Road site would be more likely through the poark fram Site due in part tio the fragmented ownership of Park lane. There was though a need to reduce traffic going via Mountwood Road and Manor Lane. Pamela Howard expressed concern about an improved Park lane providing a rat run to the East Beach where there was no public parking. . Pamela also expressed concern about the lack of a theme or consistency of style in the NP and Ben replied by explaining that the Council had limited powers and could only work by encouragement rather than compulsion. He mentioned the success of the idea of pop up shops for starter businesses. Tim asked Ben about the drainage problems experienced by residents of Manor Lane being further exacerbated by these two proposed developments. Ben said that the relevant authority, Southern Water could only object to a development if the pumping station was inadequate or if the sewage farm itself was inadequate. Southern Water, he said, had an ongoing duty to maintain the pipework and the Council had already, and was continuing, to bring pressure on Southern Water to deal with such problems, if any, that remained in Manor Lane. He also said that video surveys were very expensive and that the Council had a limited budget. He further said that Southern Water were constrained by Ofwat and severely restricted in capital expenditure. Linda Brown declared she knew of at least one resident in Manor Lane who still suffered from sewage problems. The major matter of the number of house to be added to Selsey’s stock by 2029 was raised. The NP allows for 250 or possibly 400 but the Local Plan allows only for around 150 due the constraints of the risk of coastal flooding, the congested road and environmental impacts on Pagham Harbour and the Medmerry realignment. In answer to the question as to why the NP should allow for more houses than the Local Plan Ben replied that the Local Plan took precedence but the remit for the NP was to identify suitable sites and this they had done. He pointed out that the Thawscroft site was unlikely to be considered until the near the end of the period and was in any case in Zone 3 for flood risk so therefore ruled out unless, or until, the benefits of the Medmerry realignment had proved themselves and the EA redrew the flood zone maps to include Thawscroft within Zone 2 or 1 Ben said that the NP policy for Landlink was 90 houses. Their last plan was 156, so on this basis, if STC felt the NP carried sufficient weight to be policy, Landlink might fail on numbers alone. Just to demonstrate the fact this is absolutely NOT a done deal. Housing number - our allocation is a lower target not an upper target, meaning we have to deliver at least 150 plus windfall sites. Because we have multiple sites capable of delivering our target we have to identify and investigate them all. We do NOT have to deliver them all. However the issue of timing is a difficult one as it looks Ike Landlink and Pye will submit around the same time. Pye doesnt deliver the full allocation but Landlink does. So if Pye comes first and was supported we would be left open to Landlink. If Landlink came first and was supported at 157 we would have a stronger case against an application from Pye. I fully expect we will not have the benefit of preferential order and therefore will have to make some tough decisions. You cannot support 50% of something so if Pye comes in first and then Landlink we could not support Pye and only some of Landlink, it is all or nothing for both! Ben also said there are (today) no live major planning applications and the council has not got a position on any of the sites other than what is set out in the draft policy of the NP for each site. As I have pointed out, my information suggests both Pye and Landlink will exceed or stretch these allocation policies so right now I would not even bet which way either might go. Tim pointed out that the Flood Zone assessment for the Pye site had been re assessed twice over three year period, to the great advantage of Pye, from Zone 3 to Zone 1 for reasons that were unclear to him. Ben said that nearly all new buildings now would on be a flood plain and have to meet flood resistance standards such as no living accommodation on the ground floor, raised plug sockets etc.. Linda Brown pointed out this would mean three storey houses overlooking the bungalows in Drift Road. Mike Beal said that the third storey would be mansarded within a reduced apex asymmetrical roof and that the degree of overlook depended on how far back from Drift Road the house stood, In any case no one had a right to a view. Tim said there was a right not have an overbearing structure built nearby. Tim expressed pleasure that the NP allowed for the possibility of the underused and scruffy Ellis Square being allowed to assume a mixed use status rather than business use only and asked if this could be used for housing thereby relieving Selsey of the need to build on greenfields. Ben replied that there would in the long term be a need for land for employment and any loss of such land in Ellis Square would have to made up elsewhere in Selsey. The meeting closed at 10pm with thanks to Ben and Mike for their time and to Harold and Glenda for being the hosts.
Posted on: Fri, 11 Jul 2014 09:43:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015