Published on Friday 25 May 2012 11:30
ANGER has erupted over an application for up to 500 homes to the West of Southwater.
The original planning application by Berkeley Homes had to be dramatically withdrawn at the eleventh hour in February, when English Heritage upgraded the listing of Great Farm House building [WSCT 23/02/2012].
Now, the amended plans made to comply with English Heritage’s criteria are being branded as ‘obnoxious’, with new concerns raised over loss of privacy and degradation of the environment.
Berkeley Homes amended plans include a reduction in houses with none proposed to be built immediately to the south west of the historic farm house. English Heritage has reported that the plans ‘meet the objectives of NPPF policy’.
The statement submitted by English Heritage on May 8 said: “The assessment concludes that whilst there would be a change in part of the setting of the designated heritage asset, that the impact would cause little harm and not constrict an understanding of, or act as a distraction from, its significance.”
Andrew McPhillips, Land and Planning Director for Berkeley Homes, said:
“We have taken English Heritage’s concerns on board and made a number of alterations to the application as a result. These are positive changes which reflect our commitment to work with all parties involved in the planning process.”
However, the amendments do not overcome the objections of local campaigners, and some residents.
Ian Thwaites, of Marlpost Road, and Keep Southwater Green, said on HDC’s planmning portal: “The amended proposal is as obnoxious as the previous ones and I object most strongly.
“The loss of productive farmland which is much cherished and a valued amenity for the village is an overwhelming ‘harm’ and there are no balancing benefits that the village needs or wants.
“In any event the development is unsustainable by any definition. It will not provide truly affordable houses for local people.”
Peter Kindersley, from Keep Southwater Green, an organisation aiming to protect Southwater from over-development, said the new plans are ‘basically the same’ and that he is concerned that the farm will lose its ability to continue as a working farm, and therefore could have its listing decreased.
“We are concerned about the viability of the farm. They originally asserted it remained viable even though it lost 40 per cent of its income.
“I would like to see a proper assessment of the viability of the farm. The original numbers were just taken out of a book.”
If the development does go ahead Mr Kindersley would like to see extra land allocated to the farm so they can continue their work and continue to live in the listed building and maintain it.
“It’s a concern which would be easily relieved in the short term by giving the farmer equivalent land from some where else which they are seemingly refusing to do.”
Mr Stephen Bourne, of Woodlands Way, said: “The loss of privacy is the greatest concern, followed by; the loss of environmental heritage, the loss of the farm, the unnecessary risk of anthrax contamination, the unsustainable nature of the development with no work, no rail transport and therefore total dependence on the car, the uncertainty of water supply, the very bad emergency ambulance cover, the lack of any tangible benefit for the community.”
Berkley Homes’ original application to build 550 homes was planned to go to Horsham District Council’s Development Control (North) Committee on February 21 2012.
However the application was withdrawn after English Heritage upgraded Great House Farm to a grade two plus listed building due to its historic value and the importance of its agricultural setting.
The agent for the application, Bell Cornwell, has said in the covering letter dated May 4: “The amendments relate to the reduction in the developable area resulting from the exclusion of the field lying immediately to the south west of Great House farm from the developable area. This part of the site is now to be retained as agricultural land in conjunction with Great House Farm.”
Linda Thwaites, of Marlpost Road, said: “This amended plan is no better. It still destroys a farm which is hugely appreciated by the village, is productive and destroys the livelihood of a family that have tenanted it for 200 years.
“It will compromise both the architectural and cultural heritage of the village and nothing is offered that remotely offsets this dreadful destruction.”
Further consideration of the application is needed before going back to Committee for Members’ consideration and determination of the application.
The date that the planning application will go to committee is not yet known and will depend upon an assessment of all the new material and what arises from the consultation process.
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.