Summary: application to build 5 houses and a large building further out into the South Downs valley
Site History:
Up until 2003 all of the farm buildings and the farmhouse at Spring Barn Farm were close to the eastern end of the site near the Kingston Road, Lewes. Previously there was no development into this downland valley leading up to Kingston. In 2001 there had been approval for a camping location but no buildings.
In 2003 permission was given to use part of the farm as a children’s activity area and for part of an old farm barn as ‘tea’ rooms and a children’s visitor centre. In 2005 permission was given for the construction of residential buildings to the south west/south of the original farmstead including a three-storey building (wood clad) and a single story (brick & flint clad) building. In 2007 the restriction tying the residential aspect of the buildings to the agricultural use was lifted. In 2007 permission was given for a camping site further into the valley with the erection of a toilet block. In 2009 permission was given for the erection of a farm shop to the south west of the area of original buildings. In 2009 permission was given for the building of a large cattle barn further into the valley. At some time after this another agricultural barn was erected further into the valley as well.
Current Application:
In 2012 a planning application was submitted for the building of 7 residential dwellings and the demolition of the new farm shop and older farm buildings together with the erection of a large building next to the 2009 cattle barn which would serve as a ‘farm park centre’. It appears that this application passed relatively unnoticed to the public and certainly was not notified to Kingston Parish Council which borders the site. Lewes Town Council raised no objections though the Friends of Lewes and the South Downs Society both objected to the development. Both these objections centred on the National Park purposes (see para 115 & 116 of the NPPF).
From 2012 onwards for 2 ½ years there was considerable officer to officer correspondence and communication with the developer resulting in some revised designs and a reduction by 2 houses. Concerns were raised by the SDNPA Design Officer and the ESCC Landscape Design Officer over the impact of both the residential development and the large building on the landscape of valley.
Other than the statutory notices on site and in the newspaper in 2012 it appears that at no time over to 2 ½ years were the public and Kingston Parish Council consulted either by the SDNPA or the developer. The NPPF and para 66 does put an obligation on developers to consult the community.
SDNPA Planning Committee – 9th April 2015
The application appeared on the agenda papers for the April 2015 meeting of the SDNPA planning committee with a recommendation for approval.
On the basis of natural justice and what I think should be the right way to approach public participation in the planning process I asked the SDNPA to defer the application for a month or two to allow for public consultation. Unfortunately the officers refused this request; so I attended the meeting and repeated the request for a deferment. I had also alerted some of the residents of Kingston to the planning application which resulted in about 10 objections in the 24 hours leading up to the meeting.
My main concern was that residents in Kingston, some of whom overlook the site, needed to be consulted on the impact of the overall intensified residential and commercial development of the valley and especially the impact on the landscape of the 1000 m² , some 7.65 m high ‘farm park centre’ out into the valley itself. To give you an idea of the scale, this building would have been approximately 2 ½ times the size of the existing large cattle barn.
There are many side issues to this intensified use such as expansion of car parking, noise at night and the loss of the tranquillity in the valley along with potential light pollution and ultimately the threat of more buildings to come in the future.
The Committee Vote:
The chairman and 8 members attended the meeting and with the exception of one member many had concerns about the development but my point about deferment was largely ignored as were any concerns for the residents of Kingston but one member reiterated the purposes of the National Park and reminded the committee that the National Parks offer the highest level of planning protection in the country and as such this protection should be upheld. The vote was then taken with 1 member abstaining, 3 voting against the proposal to refuse and 4 voting for refusal. The application was thus turned down.
Postscript:
My concerns centre on public consultation for such a large development which would impact an area of the National Park landscape permanently. I’m also concerned that the officers of the Park seem to be quite happy with sticking to their strict statutory obligations and not consulting surrounding parishes relying on Anglo-Saxon boundaries created over thousand years ago!