PLEASE NOTE THESE MINUTES ARE UNADOPTED - THE MINUTES BELOW ARE DUE TO BE APPROVED AT THE START OF THE NEXT
EASEBOURNE PARISH COUNCIL MEETING ON 10th NOVEMBER 2010.
___________________________________
EASEBOURNE PARISH COUNCIL
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING PARISH COUNCIL MEETING HELD
ON THURSDAY 28th OCTOBER 2010
Present: Mr J Stringer (Vice-chairman), Dr A Guyatt, Mrs J Deacon-Ford, Mr F Martin, Mrs A Marchand, Mrs J Macdonald-Lawson, Mr J Dabson, Mr D Pack, Mr B Gowar, the Clerk and 15 members of the public.
In the absence of Mr Heustice (Chairman), Mr Stringer (Vice-chairman) took the chair for the meeting.
10/11
55 Apologies for Absence: Mr I Heustice and Mr M Taylor
56 Planning applications EB/10/04389/FUL and EB/10/04390/LBC – re-development of the King Edward VII Hospital
Mr Stringer outlined the proposal as follows:
New dwellings: 220 new build and 25 conversions, housing 628 people and 14 full-time employees
Assisted care units: 143, in the Sanatorium building, within the existing C2 use
Social and community facilities: part-time GP surgery and pharmacy, shop, café, swimming pool and gym
Gertrude Jekyell gardens: to be reinstated together with 6.37 km of measured walks.
Demolition: of some existing buildings
Mini-bus service: serving residents and on-site employees
Management Company: to take over each phase as completed
Assisted Care element: will be managed by a Registered Care Provider giving minimum of 4 hours support for each occupant per week
Commencement of development: May 2011, finishing November 2017 with first occupant 2012
The public were then asked for their comments
With over 650 parking spaces in total, and therefore a great increase in traffic
movement, Kings Drive, even with the passing places proposed by the developer, is totally inadequate, as is the junction with the A286.
Will access to the 3 proposed houses in Pine Walk not necessitate cutting through woodland designated for measured walks?
Will this development help the older residents of Midhurst and area, by providing much-needed accommodation for elderly people, not necessarily “care” facilities? Will the price of the properties make them affordable for this age group?
Why will English Heritage not fund the renovation of the Listed Building without the necessity of building a new “village” that will increase the population of Easebourne by a third?
Why can the redevelopment not be considered in conjunction with the Sygenta site in Fernhurst?
Can the history and fond memories of the old hospital be allowed to justify the building of a “housing estate” that contributes nothing to the area. Who will the houses and apartments sell to?
Do we have the infrastructure in Easebourne to cope with such an influx of residents ie: schools, doctors, and other vital services?
We should find out if the Riverbank Medical Centre is already up to capacity.
Concerns about the water pressure, water supply and sewerage services ability to cope with such an increased demand in a very rural location. Storm water is also a problem.
Will the bank, who owns the site, get planning permission and then sell-on the property?
Will the new houses be built first, before re-development of the Listed Building is started, with the possibility that the renovation element will never happen?
It is understood that the service charge for residents of the new development would be £6000 to £8000 per annum. Far too much for most people to pay.
Concern was expressed about the disruption to wildlife that currently inhabits the area.
It was suggested that the Parish Council should seek advice from outside consultants before responding to the application.
It was suggested that the site would be better served by building fewer properties, but developing these in the £1 million+ price bracket.
As it is not the Parish Council’s responsibility to preserve the Listed Building should the application not be considered purely in terms of the amount of new build proposed and exclude reference to conservation of the old?
Is it worth accepting this large development, and its impact on the area, just to save a listed building that only appears to be of sentimental, rather than architectural, value to residents of the area?
The public meeting ended and the Parish Councillors then discussed the application.
Taking into consideration the comments from Councillors and from the public meeting a motion to object to the application was proposed by Mr Dabson and seconded by Mr Gowar. 8 for the motion and 1 against. The reasons to be given for the objection are:
1 The quantity of new homes on the site is excessive in such a sensitive area, namely an AONB and part of the South Downs National Park.
2 If the building of 220 new homes is required to conserve the listed building/gardens then the cost is too high in terms of damage to the environment.
3 The proposed renovated listed building and gardens would not be readily visible or accessible to the general public.
4 The strain on the infrastructure of the area will be considerable in terms of village resources, school places, roads and other essential services.
5 We also, at this time, lack confirmation from the District Valuer that the proposal is viable, bearing in mind that previous applications were not so, and resulted in the collapse of the project.
The meeting closed at 9.15pm
The next full Parish Council meeting will be on Wednesday 10th November 2010 at 7.30pm in the Refectory, Easebourne. All are welcome.
Mrs Carole Allan, Clerk to Easebourne Parish Council
Ashfield Cottage, 1 Ashfield Close, Midhurst, West Sussex, GU29 9RP
Telephone: 01730 813374
Email: easebournepc@tiscali.co.uk |