Planning

Planning: Looking Back Harvey Tordoff’s overview

‘The introduction in The Midhurst Magazine, Number 1 Volume 1 (Autumn 1988) says: “The Midhurst Society was founded in the 1950s to safeguard the traditional character of the town and its neighbourhood. Over the years it has sought to promote the concept that development should be compatible with the preservation of historic and other buildings of public interest and that adequate amenities should be provided for residents and visitors.”

Nowadays we get involved in much more, but we still take our planning role seriously. Although planning regulations are much tighter than when the Society was formed, we still find it necessary to pass comment on the majority of major proposals, now taking into account environmental issues in a way not contemplated in 1960. Furthermore, instant communication with our members and followers means that we can solicit their views before writing to the relevant planning authority.

Even so, we still follow the principles outlined by the 1988 chairman, Mrs D.V.F. JohnsonDavies in that same magazine.

“It is clear that the town will change substantially in the coming years and it is, therefore, more important than ever necessary for those people who live and work in it and in the neighbouring villages to make their collective voice heard above the din of conflicting interests. The Midhurst Society is well placed to help in achieving this; working as it does with other amenity societies, it can convey the opinions of members and others to the decision-makers in the expectation that they will be taken into account by the Authorities during their deliberations.”

“The extent to which the collective voice will

The 550-page Pre-Submission Document

be acted upon, however, depends on the integrity with which it speaks. A point of view put forward with factual accuracy and a clear indication that it is given in the belief that it will serve the interests of the community as a whole is more likely to find a response than one that is offered, no matter how insistently, in support of limited or personal objectives.”

Members of the Committee have come and gone, but keeping an eye on development proposals has always been a priority. Although we generally don't comment on proposals affecting single properties, we spent a considerable amount of time studying the South Downs Local Plan, which provides the framework for all planning applications in the decade to come. In November 2017 we commented at length (8 pages) on the Presubmission Plan, urging the authors to do more on environmental issues. Sadly, our recommendations were not taken up when the Plan was adopted in July 2019, and we are left to raise the subject of climate change mitigation with each and every major proposal. There is hope, however. In January 2020 SDNPA released a consultation document on Sustainable Construction – A Supplementary Planning Document. This is

only 57 pages! We will respond in due course.

One of the potential development sites identified in the Local Plan was subsequently the subject of further discussions. In July 2019 pre-application advice was sought for 72 homes on the Midhurst Brickworks & WSCC Depot in Bepton Road.

In August 2019 we responded by urging SDNPA to insist that any developer should protect the Common, plant trees, provide renewable energy, adequate parking, and electric charging points. We also pointed out that the recycling centre must be retained, new jobs could be created, and (as always) we banged on about improving infrastructure! In November 2019 a new and comprehensive design brief was lodged by JTP Studios.

The old Caravan Site in Holmbush was also included in the Local Plan, with the suggestion that it could accommodate 50 to 70 housing units. We drew attention to the flood risk and inadequate access provisions, but there has been no further movement on this development.

The site that has taxed us the most, however, is the undeveloped site by The Grange Centre;

the one surrounded by green hoardings. We

Artists impression: Grange residential care home.

first became involved in July 2017 when we suggested that until such time as a development proposal was accepted the hoardings could be removed and the area grassed over for amenity use. We even offered to pay for some seats. This idea was rejected and in August 1918, following a secret deal between Chichester DC (owner of the land) and Montpelier Estates, pre-planning advice was sought for the development of a residential care home. We posted to Facebook and there was widespread condemnation. We wrote to CDC suggesting that the need for another residential care home hadn't been demonstrated; that the site had not been earmarked for a care home in the Local Plan; that this was not the best use of a prime site in the centre of town; that housing people in need of care next to a busy car park presented health issues; and that care homes should be sited in leafy suburbs. CDC responded by saying they had a legal requirement to accept the highest offer. We countered by pointing out that in certain circumstances this was not the case. A petition with over one thousand signatures was presented to CDC but they were unmoved.

We invited the Leader of CDC to come to one of our evening talks (January 2019) for a Questions and Answers session. It cleared the air, but didn't result in either side changing its stance. We resigned ourselves to waiting for the planning application, at which point we would be able to make comment. But time passed and the hoardings remained. An unwanted development site in the centre does not present the town in a good light for visitors and would-be traders.

In August 2019 we asked Midhurst Town Council if they would consider requesting Community Asset Status for the site. This would mean that the owner would have to offer the site to the community before

accepting an offer from a third party. MTC declined, and so in October 2019 we requested it ourselves. We had to address our request to CDC, and we asked for assurances that a fair decision would be made by the Council as landowner. They were quite affronted, and informed us that the decision would be made independently of the department responsible for the sale of the land. The same legal entity, though.

Perhaps not surprisingly CDC rejected our request on the grounds that for the last four years the site had not been used by or for the benefit of the community. Of course not! The community was locked out! Prior to that the old Grange Centre had been used by the community since the 1970s! When we posted this news on Facebook, several people recalled that residents and local businesses had contributed to the cost of the earlier development, which would seem to suggest that CDC had a moral obligation to consult with the community before making a decision. Under the Freedom of Information Act, we asked CDC for details of the original funding but they were unable to comply.

When the dust had settled on the General Election, we wrote to our MP Gillian Keegan. We did not expect her to take our side against CDC but we suggested that the law should be changed to prevent landowners from making decisions on CommunityAsset Status requests. We did not receive a response.

There is still no planning application for us to consider.

The other major planning issue we were involved with related to Soft Sand Quarrying.

Pendean: An existing quarry in the SDNP

This was a complex case, but in essence it boiled down to this. When the Local Plan was drawn up SDNPA excluded potential quarrying sites on the basis that they were inappropriate for a National Park. The Government did not accept this argument and appointed an Inspector to reconsider the matter. In January 2018 we commented to SDNPA that the matter should not be reinvestigated and that the Government and/or the building industry had an obligation to source building materials from outside National Parks. Further, any requirement for mineral extraction should be weighed against the national commitment to reduce our carbon footprint. The Inspector ignored this and duly recommended that sites with the National Park should be considered. In March 2019 we objected. (Did you ever doubt it?)

Artist's Impression: Residential Care Home, Old Grange Site Sand Quarrying Sites Subject to Review

A campaign was launched for the protection of the Severals site, but to us this seemed unnecessarily confrontational. Instead we based our objection on the protection that the whole of the South Downs National Park needs and deserves.

We drew attention to Government policy and to numerous statements that have been made by the Government and by several of its ministers. In January 2020 it was announced that The Severals (East and West) and Minsted West should be ruled out of further consideration. Two other sites within the National Park were not ruled out, so it was only a partial victory.

Less controversial but also important, planning letters were written on the proposal for 20 dwellings in Lamberts Lane and a further 9 dwellings on an adjacent site (Lamberts Lane/Park Crescent).

Lamberts Lane: January 2019 Lamberts Lane: September 2019

Our concern here was not with the building of much-needed homes but with the impact on parking and traffic flow in Lamberts Lane which is extremely narrow at both ends and forms dangerous junctions with North Street.

Unrestricted parking led to vehicles regularly being left on grass verges. An additional 40 or so vehicles would exacerbate an already unsatisfactory situation. The developers argued that 29 new dwellings would not result in more vehicle movements than would have been experienced had the demolished building remained in use. West Sussex Highways did not acknowledge a problem and both applications were accepted.

We also lent our support to the proposal for an extension of the cycle track known as

Centurion Way as far as Cocking Hill.

Ultimately it is hoped to continue the track through Midhurst and in front of Cowdray Ruins to the A272 by the Cowdray Farm Shop, providing a long-distance safe option for cyclists.

We did not, however, take a stance on the development proposal for 6 housing units on the site currently occupied by the Bowls Club. This would enable the Club to relocate across June Lane and build a new club house. We felt compromised in having two officers of the Bowls Club on our Committee, and we restricted ourselves to general comments.

In September 2019 the SDNPA published a We responded in October 2019, expressing approval but suggesting an additional proposal: “There are a number of vacant properties in the Park (including Midhurst) – some of which have been unoccupied for a number of years. There might be very good reasons why this is so, but we feel that the property

consultation paper on Affordable Housing. owners should be given an incentive to return them to active use.

One way would be to enable a Community Land Trust, in certain circumstances, to bid for such a property, in which case the owner would have to accept. Assuming he wanted to avoid such an outcome, he might be more motivated to act in a timely

manner! Perhaps the circumstances could be along the lines of: •If a domestic property is unoccupied for a period in excess of five years a Community Land Trust shall be entitled to make a bid for such property, such bid to benefit from a discount of 50% of the market value.” We are nothing if not controversial!

We also commented on the redevelopment of Dundee House (formerly Frazer Nash), Stedham Sawmill and three sites in Easebourne.

We no longer have the same number of members that The Midhurst Society enjoyed in the days of Mrs JohnsonDavies, but thanks to the changing shape of society we now have well over 700 followers on Facebook. Seeking views before taking action ensures that we represent a large cross-section of Midhurst residents.

Artist's Impression: Bowls Club Redevelopment, June Lane

Artist's Impression: Dundee House, Bepton Road

From the Chair:

Dear Readers,

As the Society’s 60th year began, we heard a short news bulletin about something called Corona Virus in a distant town in China that nobody had heard of….and we moved on; no panic!

We decided to mark our 60th anniversary with something special for existing members and new members alike - a bumper edition; 60 pages-of the new format magazine and a summer garden party - as you can see here our Editors, Peter Sydenham and Harvey Tordoff with increasing help from Thomas McGlashan, have achieved our first goal, the second depends on how our negotiations progress. But campaigns and Facebook do not wait for outstanding merit. Harvey Tordoff’s daily Facebook Posts subscribers and sales via various outlets. The editorial team of Adelaide!) and Harvey have enticed many a contributor over the last year so please do read the 2019 issues if you have not yet done so you’re in for a treat.

Issue 30

In recent weeks we have been assisted with planning matters by Keith Tregunna, who comes with a great deal of experience, but your Committee still has two vacancies -Treasurer and the new post of Activities Organiser. If you would

a virus - Richard Cobden’s House, the Rother Pathway to name but two campaigns of

attract more Likes and Followers every week and similarly, our magazine gathers more

Peter (who lives in like to know more

Issue 29

Treasurer Activities

about these positions, or would just like an informal chat please ‘buttonhole’ any committee member.

Will you be next to help put our aims into practice?

In 2020 we have welcomed even more new members than last year, due in part to increased involvement by your committee in the affairs of Midhurst. and in particular our marketing effort driven by Committee member Thomas McGlashan,

who designs our monthly mailers and posters and introduced our e-mail list management system.

Since the last issue your Society (in the person of Harvey Tordoff) has also presented to the local branch of the Round Table, attended formative sessions of Midhurst Vision, applied (unsuccessfully) for Community Asset Status for the Grange development site, corresponded with the ‘powers that be’ concerning West Lavington Church, the

It is always being said!

opening of the Blue Bell complex in Cocking, and the Keep Stedham Primary School actions.

All this we believe shows us to be an active society with something to say about what goes on in our town and villages.

Michael Balmforth Chairman

Cover of No1 of Midhurst Heritage, started up in

Spring 2004 – 16 years ago.

The beauty of Midhurst has been expressed numerous times over the past centuries; by many famous personalities who have experienced it. This was said inside the cover of that issue:

‘Midhurst is a very special place, set amid outstanding natural beauty interspersed with picture postcard villages that still retain a vibrant life and culture. The town itself is an architectural delight: old houses nudge those that are even older, twisting lanes and high walls conceal enchanted gardens, and the higgled y-piggled y roofscape reveals buildings that have squeezed themselves in to any available space. A town planner's nightmare, but a visual joy. Wherever you go, history is waiting around the corner.’

Answers to Pictorial Quiz.

1.Middle (clearing) in wooded hills 2.Whip Hill 3.Duck Lane

4.The Crown

5.Orion Cinema

6.St Margaret's, or Sisters of Mercy 7.Clasped hands representing friendship between Midhurst and Easebourne

8. Anya Seton 9. In 2006

10.A leaping deer and the Cowdray Ruins 11.The Wharf

12.To link two railway stations

Correction for Issue 30

Sorry, but our proof-reading slipped a bit. In Issue 30, page 13, the last line should read:

Uncle John Allin.

From (Inkygirl.com. Daily Diversion for Writers. Debbie Redpath, Ohio.)