1. Previously developed brownfield sites should be re-used first, in preference to building on greenfields
91% agreed or agreed strongly
The detail:
87% (162) Strongly agree
5% (9) Agree
3% (5) Neutral
2% (4) Disagree
3% (5) Strongly disagree
2 not applicable
What you said:
“With so many brown field sites in the county, I would prefer to see them developed. However, in small villages there may not be brown field sites, and a few 'local need' houses should be built.”
“I would also suggest that when a property developer has a land-‐bank of brownfield land, he should be compelled by law to develop such sites before applications for greenfield land can even be put on the table.”
“But disused farm buildings should not be categorised as brown field sites. They should revert to greenfields/agricultural purposes.”
“Over 2 million acres of brownfield sites are already in possession of planning permission. Why is the government or local councils not empowered to get them back to use for the housing shortage? And why is no-‐one forcing them to do this or build on them to regenerate areas which need housing and employment?
“However some largely rural District LPAs might have difficulty in finding enough PDL to meet their required building land supply.”
“In Brighton, the Government are trying to force the council to build on the urban fringe, as almost 300,000 people are sandwiched between the Downs National Park and the sea. The old Victorian brownfield sites need to be built on, and all university students housed on the two university campus sites, freeing up housing for the 17,000 on the council waiting lists. There are 40,000 students in Brighton from two universities, taking the homes meant for local city dwellers.”
“Those who are against countryside development are invariably those already living there. Those who do not have an equal right to enjoy living in the country and this can be only achieved by building sensitively in both green and brown sites.”
2. Support for affordable housing delivered by local providers should be prioritised over new market housing in rural Sussex
79% agreed or agreed strongly
The detail:
52% (98) Strongly agree
27% (50) Agree
12% (22) Neutral
4% (8) Disagree
3% (6) Strongly disagree
3 Not applicable
What you said:
“I can't see my daughter being able to afford a house in our village and she may want to remain in the village when she is older. Therefore, a few small affordable homes could be sensitively developed.”
“Do not see the sense of building affordable housing for people to come in from outside if there is no work but if we have a labour shortage then build affordable housing”
“Housing should just generally be more affordable, very few people can even afford to buy a house.”
“Yes, where that new housing is genuinely necessary. Remember that there are hundreds of thousands of empty homes, nationwide.”
“A definition of 'affordable housing' needs to be understood. Statistics are available (Nomis) to understand, area by area, the need of 'affordable housing'. The issue is not of one type of housing taking precedent over another but of meeting demand with supply for all housing needs.”
3. Local people should be given a strong voice to ensure that development needs are met in the right place, sensitively located, with excellent environmental standards and high quality design
90% agreed or agreed strongly
The detail:
76% (142) Strongly agree
14% (26) Agree
3% (6) Neutral
2% (3) Against
3% (5) Strongly against
5 not applicable
What you said:
“Strongly agree but why did CPRE not join with my Parish Council, local representatives and many others in opposing 700 dwellings plus employment use proposals on Mornings Mill Farm and Hindsland Playing Fields at Willingdon both in the foreground of views from the South Downs National Park and our last green space actually in Willingdon.”
“As long as NIMBY objectors have to show where would be a more suitable place. At present it ends up as 'NOWHERE'.”
“But care should be taken to ensure that 'localism' is not influenced by personal greed for money.”
“Unfortunately the framework set by the District Council already provides the framework within which NPs can be drawn up. So if you don't like some aspect of the LP you are stuck with it. This makes NPs rather toothless. “
“Whilst agreeing with a 'bottom up' approach to planning, the debate at a local level is still, largely at a 'nimby' level.”
4. Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) and National Park areas in Sussex enjoy the highest national protection because of their landscape value and scenic beauty and should be rightly protected
91% agreed or agreed strongly
The detail:
78% (145) Strongly agree
13% (25) Agree
3% (6) Neutral
2% (3) Disagree
3% (5) Strongly disagree
3 not applicable
What you said:
“Yes but these designations have pushed a great deal of development onto the flatter ground south of Chichester which are of considerable wildlife importance in their own right”
“Yes, but I hope the CPRE will also positively take action over blight caused by 'industrial farming' as well. “ “But not at the expense of nearby countryside outside the AONB.”
“Agree. But protection does NOT mean no development there are places that could accommodate development.”
“They should take their share of development, as long as it was of very high standard vernacular, and contributed to the cost of care of the surrounding countryside.”
“In East Sussex we have the National Park in the south and the High Weald AONB in the north leaving a small corridor of the the Low Weald where all the worst developments (Land Raise and Solar Farms) are concentrated.”
5. Solar Panels should be required to go on buildings first, in preference to being placed on greenfields and farmland
75% agreed strongly or agreed
The detail:
43% (80) Agree strongly
32% (60) Agree
13% (24) Neutral
7% (13) Disagree
4% (7) Disagree strongly
3 not applicable
What you said:
“But only if buildings are available. Solar panels on farmland does not necessarily mean that farming stops – unlike when housing is put on farmland.”
“Fields of solar panels are a complete blot on the landscape and also remove the use for food production. They should not be allowed!”
“The subsidy system encourages farmers to farm solar panels because they are far more profitable than crops or animals. The most efficient reducer of atmospheric CO2 is photosynthesis.”
“The government needs to increase the tariffs to make this an attractive proposition again for residential dwellings. Legal agreements need to be put in place so that rented buildings of factories, offices etc can have solar panels installed. Supermarkets and their car parks should be able to have solar panels installed. Village halls could also have solar panels installed if grant funding was available for this purpose.”
“If we retain the Climate Change Act and the decarbonisation strategy that flows from it, in 2030 the UK power system will reflect this: it will be overwhelmingly renewable and nuclear. That is set out as a requirement of the fourth carbon budget; on the heating side, the budget requires 50% of industrial heating and 30% of domestic heating to be electrified by 2030 as well. While I agree solar on buildings is the right thing to do, there will be the need for renewables on the ground, including solar farms..."
“It seems that the only real objection to solar farms is one of aesthetics. When considering that they are really no more visually offensive than glasshouses, can quietly produce enough power for thousands of homes for 25-‐30 years, create no pollution, sustain wildlife and grazing, retain the site's greenfield status after decommissioning, then their deployment makes sense on all levels -‐ economic, environmental and with regard to conservation. If every village in Sussex had several hectares dedicated to solar energy -‐ especially if through local cooperatives -‐ it would go a long way to powering the whole county."
6 EU Environmental Stewardship schemes to support farmers to nurture biodiversity and protect the environment should be continued and enhanced.
87% agreed or agreed strongly
The detail:
55% (103) Agree strongly
32% (59) Agree
8% (15) Neutral
2% (4) Disagree
1% (2) Disagree strongly
4 not applicable
What you said:
“It is vital that we support farmers to help nature flourish on their farms. We have already missed our target to halt biodiversity loss, so it's essential we help farmers to be wildlife‐friendly.”
“Enhanced Funding should be conditional on the provision of increased Permissive Public Access, so that all can enjoy it.”
“Having family who work in farming, I think there is already an attitude to protect the environment. However, there is the need for financial assistance and the likelihood of being approached now by gas / oil companies to lease the land is VERY high. However, if farmers can utilise their land for renewables (new technology vertical wind turbines, solar etc) they may be more inclined to follow that financial incentive rather than the polluting type. It's easy for us to think that a few sites dotted around the countryside, like Singleton or Storrington will not have an impact on us. It will; within the last 16 months, my sister has 14 well sites in a 6 mile radius of her. Fracking TAKES OVER.”
“This is why we should support the farmers from unscrupulous Super Stores.”
“So long as farmers don't abuse these schemes.”
“UK needs to move away from the EU dictacts.”
7 A second runway at Gatwick, with associated sprawling development and car parks would land a disaster on the countryside and destroy rural quality of life.
65% agreed or strongly agreed
The detail:
44 % (83) Agree strongly
20% (38) Agree
18% (33) Neutral
11% (21) Disagree
5% (9) Disagree strongly
3 not applicable
What you said:
“But the CPRE must have a policy to cover this wider subject. Not just Gatwick”
“A second runway will only add to the industrialisation of central Sussex and reduction in the quality of life of all inhabitants. I would hope that CPRE would put the case against another runway being developed at Gatwick.”
“Extra air traffic is due to holiday makers rather than business trips. I suggest that train services to the continent should be promoted. However, I am against High Speed Rail tearing up countryside.”
“Benefits to the local people should be taken into consideration. Will it bring employment? We should not destroy peoples lives though.”
“In truth its probably less harmful than at Heathrow. But I would challenge the need for continued airport expansion when a high proportion of travellers to London are simply interlining and bring no benefit to the UK.”
“It would be less expensive, quicker to build and affect fewer people than Heathrow, and it has got to go somewhere. Its no good saying NOT HERE, without getting agreement of others that they would accept it there.”
“The dreadful proposal to build a new airport in the Thames -‐ 'Boris Island' -‐ is a MUCH worse idea.”
8. Fracking should only be allowed to take place if we can be sure our environment and health are safe.
89% agree or strongly agree with the proposal
The detail:
48% (89) Agree strongly
28% (52) Agree
8% (15) Neutral
3% (6) Disagree
10% (18) disagree strongly
7 not applicable
What you said:
“BUT it is much more than that -‐ it threatens to industrialise rural areas, will produce enormous amounts of traffic and wreck water supplies. CPRE has been too quiet over three current applications -‐ Balcombe, Kirdford and Wisborough Green and Fernhurst.”
“But the CPRE must have a policy to cover this wider subject. It must be assessed in relation to the use of all fossil fuels some of which are more harmful. See my blog: http://21stcentrurysociety.blogspot.co.uk/2012/11/want-‐to-‐know-‐more-‐ about-‐fracking.html”
“But fracking is preferable to destruction of wildlife and damage to health caused by inefficient and costly wind turbines.”
“CPRE should be encouraging a debate on the environmental impacts of fracking so that there can be a sensible debate.”
“The recommendations of the Protect Sussex Group appear wholly appropriate as a basis for Branch policy in this field.”
“This is just a formula for universal rejection. If we have to ensure a future supply of fossil fuels then we must follow USA and learn from their experience.”