|
3 Counties Group Press Release County Meeting—East Grinstead Houses The County Strategic and Environmental Select Committee (SE SELCO) meeting last Wednesday (25 June) at Chichester to consider amendments and modifications to the proposed Structure Plan, kept its word. It suspended its normal rules. 3 Counties Group (3CG) which had made a request to address the Committee, was not permitted to speak. In its place, hastily-invited MSDC representative, Council Leader, Christine Field addressed East Grinstead (EG) concerns. Not a word was uttered by Cllr. Field about the Houses Referendum. No demand was made of the County to withdraw and re-consider the EG provisions. The point was not made that the 2500+ houses are unacceptable to the people of EG. Instead, Cllr. Field spoke of the need for “further local consultations;” to bring in “other considerations;” to broaden the EG area under consideration; to give similar consideration to “issues of transportation and infrastructure.” Cllr. Andrew Brock, while ignoring the Referendum result and “welcoming” the EIP Panel’s support for 2500 houses at EG, directed attention to the primary issue of traffic relief. The Multi-Modal Study to be undertaken by the County, said Cllr. Brock, must first show that the proposed “Transport Package” will work; that it will achieve required traffic relief. “If it fails, then there can be no houses,” he declared. EGs other County Councillor, Margaret Collins, queried County Officers on the meaning of “early provision of a relief road.” What did it mean? It duly became clear that “early provision” meant the need first to construct sufficient houses to fund the road. But this, said Cllr Collins, was unacceptable. “It would mean even more traffic on EG roads than now!” After further exchanges with Officials, Cllr. Collins finally declared bluntly, “No road; No houses!” Cllr. Field expressed sympathy for the views of Cllrs. Brock and Collins. But to pursue this line could mean undermining the proposed EG locations. “No one wants these houses”, said she (a statement contradicting the established MSDC position that the people of EG “accept” the houses). “But if we must have them; then we must get the best out of them.” Public Consultation, she again declared, was needed to “ensure public involvement. It is not for the councillors to decide!” Much concern was expressed by the Committee over methods for meeting housing “short-falls” and particularly in relation to EG. Many members showed little confidence in the ability to deliver houses at the EG location. If there should be short-falls in delivery, then other Districts, they contended, should not be required to absorb these numbers. It should be for MSDC to find an alternative location within its own (Mid-Sussex) District. Intermittent mention was made of the “East of M23” (Lamont) site. 3CG Chairman, Michael Vickers, who attended the Chichester Meeting, stated that “While we were of course distressed not to be permitted to speak, nevertheless, important things were learned. In particular, it was clear that many on the Committee are not happy with the EG location.” “The bottom line,” said Dr. Vickers, “is that the County has housing numbers to deliver.” “And many on that Committee know this cannot and will not happen here at EG. Twice in the past 12 years the County has failed to site large-scale housing here. The Government has stepped in and stopped it. And for very good infrastructural and environmental reasons. A new road will not solve traffic problems. The location here is too difficult; it poses too many complications; these would take too long and be too costly to sort—if in fact they could be sorted. It is likely the developer would eventually get ‘cold feet’ when he tallies up his costs—including one or two ‘Stokes vs Cambridge’-size payouts to landowners controlling road access (each totalling half the value of the entire development)!” It was interesting to note, he observed, that the Committee was well aware of the “East of M23” (Lamont) site. “It’s obvious merits are recognised. Close to jobs; separate access over the M23 and under the A264; direct link with Crawley’s Fastway public transport service; no 10-mile road; and no AONB. And it can start delivering houses immediately the Structure Plan is adopted (scheduled for March 2004). “Several Councillors with whom I spoke after the Meeting, said they could not understand why the EG location had gone ahead. There were easier sites. The one most often mentioned was the ‘East of M23’ site.” But could the “East of M23” location be brought forward at this late stage? “This would pose no problem for the existing draft Structure Plan,” said Dr. Vickers. “For all that would be involved would be a shift in location within Mid-Sussex District. The ‘East of M23’ site would simply replace the EG location. This way, a location which in addition meets all of Government’s ‘sustainable’ and ‘guidance’ requirements, would replace another which meets none, and likely would fail. “The County wants and needs to deliver the houses within the 2001-2016 Plan period. This ‘East of M23’ location is the one that can do it.” The County, said Dr. Vickers, had been misled. “Whether this is due simply to the irresponsible and unrepresentative actions of EGs County representatives and other EG local councillors, or Officer initiatives, or perhaps a combination of both; the position can still be retrieved. “And this can be done before this mis-conceived plan goes any further down the road. Why run the County and the Ratepayer into what otherwise will be substantial added costs arising from inevitable Court actions, and Public Inquiries; and all likely to little or no avail? Why persevere on this course when an alternative which will not give rise to any of these problems, and will readily deliver these houses, is available? Ever an optimist, Dr. Vickers remains confident that “commonsense will prevail.” Press Liaison: Peter Haskell 01342 322622 | Close | |
||
 |
|
|