Development Update Are the planners & politicians finally listening? Last month saw the dramatic defeat of the Tories in a local by-election in Chesham & Amersham, the safe seat was taken by the Lib Dems and the two main topics of concern for this turnaround were HS2 and overdevelopment locally. Here in Wealden, residents are feeling much the same about the loss of our green space to housing estates. This is Cauldavon, Horebeech Lane, despite repeated objections to planning application for 60 houses. applications, and thousands of approved houses already given the green light but yet to be built out, whilst Wealden District Council continue to give approval for more developments in the 'South Weald', especially in Horam. This was reflected in the recent in-roads the Green party made in our local by-elections. The over development in the South East only serves to over populate a crowded part of the country and drive up house prices, the government should be seriously overhauling the planning laws to level up other parts of the UK and insisting developers build affordable and sustainable homes in the right places. Planning responsibility is the hot potato that gets chucked from Wealden to central government and from our MP Nus Ghani to Wealden. Residents are tiring of this runaround.
Local applications The outcome of application WD/2021/0672/MAO Southside/Old Orchard House (opp Rosemead) has still not come to the Planning Committee South and states on Wealden's website that the decision has been delegated. Why have Wealden sat on it for so long? It seems a straight forward decision to make, given that the application was previously rejected by the government inspector last summer, for being unsustainable and inappropriate plus lots of local opposition. There have been a considerable number of objections from local residents in Horam to WD/2021/0672/MAO: Land to the East of Rosemead Place. Local resident and planning consultant David Marlow was concerned about the applicants LVIA report and felt it gives an unfair representation of the impacts to the landscape of this development. He believes (as do I) that the report substantially undervalues and under represents the significance of the harm to the landscape this development would cause. There is a clear policy basis for rejecting schemes, that would generate such adverse landscape effects and the harm this will cause outweighs any benefits of the proposal.
42
