Tree Huggers Off Again!

[pork pie]

From Worthing Herald:

Objections raised against Mash Barn development


Published on Sunday 29 April 2012 07:00

THE South Downs National Park Authority has raised objections to the proposed Brighton and Hove Albion training ground development near Mash Barn Lane, Lancing.

In a report, Tim Slaney, director of planning, said the development would “harm the setting and landscape character of South Downs National Park”.

Mr Slaney said the strategic gap between Lancing and Shoreham provided “indirect benefits” to the national park, “enabling a strip of largely undeveloped land to visually connect the national park and the sea, improving both the setting of the park and the views from it”.

If the application was successful, the development would be built upon a part of the strategic gap. Mr Slaney said if the proposal is approved by Adur District Council conditions should be added to the application.

Among the planning conditions he said should be imposed if the application was approved were the submission of samples of materials for new external work, further consideration about the implementation of a landscaping scheme, and limits on the usage of external lighting and a reduction in the height of the proposed lighting columns to reduce light spill.

 

[Vegas Seagull]

There are ugly electricity plyons all along the skyline ridge of the 'National Park' ruining the view from the new training ground, lose those Gkasshouse Slaney then we'll listen

 

[skipper734]

Some people over the road, have painted their front door a colour I don't like. It shouldn't be allowed.

 

[sparkie]

Hope this application goes through ok. How confident are the club? Is there a plan B?

 

[forumwayseagull]

When does it go to the council for the vote for planning permission?

 

[SeagullSongs]

Jesus Christ.

There are houses between the downs and the sea, they spoil me view of the hills.
I mean, I can't even see them unless I stand up.
What about fog? Surely they must outlaw that, because that DEFINITELY spoils my view of the Downs.

 

[B.W.]

It is the BEST site available... no reasonable grounds for complaint...

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

The objection seems to be based on wanting a "strategic gap" between Shoreham and Lancing , it will be filled in at some point in the future so the choice is a training academy complex or a couple of thousand new builds. The wording "indirect benefits" means in truth that there is nothing major to object to but they are going through the motions for the sake of it.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Give it a Sedum roof.

 

[Surf's Up]

Sounds like he's saying this because he feels he's got to say something. If the "conditions" can be met without compromising the functioning of the traing facility and aren't prohibitively expensive I can't see a problem

 

[Lord Bracknell]

One reason for choosing Mash Barn Lane could be that any alternative site might be in a part of Sussex where the South Downs National Park Authority would be the decision makers on a planning application, rather than (as here) just an organisation with opinions.

Here's the Report that they considered at their Planning Committee:-

http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/230208/Agenda-Item-9.pdf

4. Relevant Issues and Assessment

4.1 As a consultee the SDNPA does not have access to all the consultation responses and thirdparty
comments supplied to and held by Adur District Council. Therefore, the purpose of
this consultation response is to assess and highlight the impact of the application upon the
purposes and duty of the NP and, in particular, the impact upon the landscape of the NP and
it’s setting in accordance with the first purpose.

4.2 The application site forms part of the strategic gap identified by the Adur District Council
Local Plan 1996 to ensure that Shoreham and Lancing remain as distinct separate
conurbations. This has had indirect benefits for the NP enabling a strip of largely
undeveloped land to visually connect the NP and the sea improving both the setting of the
NP and views out of the NP. The proposal would introduce a significant element of built
form into the strategic gap significantly harmful to the setting of the SDNP and long distance
views out of the NP.

4.3 Whilst the SDNPA recognises the economic and social benefits that the proposal would
bring to the Adur district, and this is reflective of the SDNPA’s duty to foster economic and
social well-being, this does not outweigh the principal harm that the proposal would have to
the setting of the SDNP. As such, and with regard to the convention that the first NP
purpose takes precedence over the second NP purpose, the SDNPA must raise an objection
to the impact of the proposal upon the setting and landscape character of the SDNP.

4.3 However, whilst the SDNPA would contest the policy principle of the proposal, should Adur
District Council be minded to approve the application, there are a number of planning
conditions that should be imposed.

4.4 The proposed landscaping scheme should be suitably conditioned to ensure that any planting
is appropriate and will have a long term effectiveness. The use of bunds should be limited
unless they can be appropriately blended into the existing topography and landscape
character of the site.

4.5 The proposed lighting columns, with a height of 18m, should be reconsidered and reduced
to ensure that any light spill in minimised. Any excessive lighting, such as for security, should
be reduced and other options explored. The use of all lighting, including that of the indoor
football pitch dome, should be the subject of a planning condition to ensure that it is only
utilised at appropriate times and when necessary to safeguard the ‘dark skies’ of the adjacent
NP.

4.6 The materials proposed for the construction of all external surfaces, including hard flooring
surfaces such as the car park, should be the subject of a planning condition to ensure that
they are appropriate and do not have a negative impact upon the character of the NP – i.e.
large areas of reflective materials should be avoided.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The introduction of significant built form into the strategic gap will harm the setting and
landscape character of the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Therefore, the SDNPA
should raise a principal objection to the proposal. However, if Adur District Council is
minded to approve the application a number of planning conditions should be recommended
for imposition.

6. Recommendations

6.1 It is recommended that the South Downs National Park Authority raise an objection to the
principle of the proposed development. However, if Adur District Council are minded to
approve the application the following planning conditions should be imposed: the submission
of samples of materials for any new external works; further consideration and
implementation of a landscaping scheme; limits upon the usage of the external lighting and a
reduction in the height of the proposed lighting columns to reduce light spill.

 

[pastafarian]

when they mention "strategic gap" do they really mean airport?

 

[British Bulldog]

Hope this application goes through ok. How confident are the club? Is there a plan B?

The club havn't said much about it lately, but then again the planning permission for the stadium expansion has been the main focal point recently so hopefully now that's been sorted we'll start hearing more about the academy project.

 

[Badger]

The objection seems to be based on wanting a "strategic gap" between Shoreham and Lancing

This actually seems like a decent argument, I've been to Lancing.

 

[somerset]

blended into the existing topography and landscape
character of the site.

.... so they mean uneven, bramble ridden virtually unused scrubland...... !!?

 

[CP 0 3 BHA]

One reason for choosing Mash Barn Lane could be that any alternative site might be in a part of Sussex where the South Downs National Park Authority would be the decision makers on a planning application, rather than (as here) just an organisation with opinions.

Here's the Report that they considered at their Planning Committee:-

http://www.southdowns.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0015/230208/Agenda-Item-9.pdf

4. Relevant Issues and Assessment

4.1 As a consultee the SDNPA does not have access to all the consultation responses and thirdparty
comments supplied to and held by Adur District Council. Therefore, the purpose of
this consultation response is to assess and highlight the impact of the application upon the
purposes and duty of the NP and, in particular, the impact upon the landscape of the NP and
it’s setting in accordance with the first purpose.

4.2 The application site forms part of the strategic gap identified by the Adur District Council
Local Plan 1996 to ensure that Shoreham and Lancing remain as distinct separate
conurbations. This has had indirect benefits for the NP enabling a strip of largely
undeveloped land to visually connect the NP and the sea improving both the setting of the
NP and views out of the NP. The proposal would introduce a significant element of built
form into the strategic gap significantly harmful to the setting of the SDNP and long distance
views out of the NP.

4.3 Whilst the SDNPA recognises the economic and social benefits that the proposal would
bring to the Adur district, and this is reflective of the SDNPA’s duty to foster economic and
social well-being, this does not outweigh the principal harm that the proposal would have to
the setting of the SDNP. As such, and with regard to the convention that the first NP
purpose takes precedence over the second NP purpose, the SDNPA must raise an objection
to the impact of the proposal upon the setting and landscape character of the SDNP.

4.3 However, whilst the SDNPA would contest the policy principle of the proposal, should Adur
District Council be minded to approve the application, there are a number of planning
conditions that should be imposed.

4.4 The proposed landscaping scheme should be suitably conditioned to ensure that any planting
is appropriate and will have a long term effectiveness. The use of bunds should be limited
unless they can be appropriately blended into the existing topography and landscape
character of the site.

4.5 The proposed lighting columns, with a height of 18m, should be reconsidered and reduced
to ensure that any light spill in minimised. Any excessive lighting, such as for security, should
be reduced and other options explored. The use of all lighting, including that of the indoor
football pitch dome, should be the subject of a planning condition to ensure that it is only
utilised at appropriate times and when necessary to safeguard the ‘dark skies’ of the adjacent
NP.

4.6 The materials proposed for the construction of all external surfaces, including hard flooring
surfaces such as the car park, should be the subject of a planning condition to ensure that
they are appropriate and do not have a negative impact upon the character of the NP – i.e.
large areas of reflective materials should be avoided.

5. Conclusion

5.1 The introduction of significant built form into the strategic gap will harm the setting and
landscape character of the South Downs National Park (SDNP). Therefore, the SDNPA
should raise a principal objection to the proposal. However, if Adur District Council is
minded to approve the application a number of planning conditions should be recommended
for imposition.

6. Recommendations

6.1 It is recommended that the South Downs National Park Authority raise an objection to the
principle of the proposed development. However, if Adur District Council are minded to
approve the application the following planning conditions should be imposed: the submission
of samples of materials for any new external works; further consideration and
implementation of a landscaping scheme; limits upon the usage of the external lighting and a
reduction in the height of the proposed lighting columns to reduce light spill.

The impression I get from that is that they have to be seen to object because of the strategic gap issue but they've framed it in the weakest possible terms.

They'll say something similar or worse for anything proposed in that gap - and the council sooner or later will approve something.

Nothing to worry about.

 

[somerset]

when they mention "strategic gap" do they really mean airport?

There is no gap as we all know, there are roads and houses all along both sides of the coast road, its spurious nonsense to say there is a gap anyway.

 

[Jim D]

........Any excessive lighting, such as for security, should
be reduced and other options explored. .........

So, it's electrified fences and minefields then?

 

[British Bulldog]

.... so they mean uneven, bramble ridden virtually unused scrubland...... !!?

Well it was virtually unused until the academy plans were heard about, Now it's suddenly become more popular. I remember when I could take my dog out there I rarely saw anyone else and a couple of other locals I know have said the same thing.

 

[somerset]

Well it was virtually unused until the academy plans were heard about, Now it's suddenly become more popular.

That novelty will soo wear off,..... it was rarely used by anybody all the years I lived in Shadwells Rd, our garden backed onto that land.