EAST GRINSTEAD TOWN COUNCIL
Minutes of a meeting of the Three Tiers Group
held in the Council Chamber, East Court
on Thursday, 11th September 2008 at 5.00 p.m.
Present: Representing East Grinstead Town Council -
Councillors Baldwin (In the Chair), Mrs Bennett, Johnson, and Musk
Representing Mid Sussex District Council-
Councillors Mrs Brunsdon, Brock Jerrey and Reed
Representing West Sussex County Council
Councillors Mrs Ball and Mrs Collins, DL
Also present: Ian Moody (Mid Sussex District Council)
Chris Owen and Duncan Barrett (West Sussex County Council)
District Councillor Edward Matthews (by invitation)
C J Rolley, Town Clerk
1 Apologies for absence: Councillor Marmara (for business reasons) and Councillor
Pearce who had been invited as a guest but was unable to attend due to an alternative
commitment.
2 Minutes
The Minutes of the meeting held on 22nd July 2008 were agreed as correct.
3 Presentation by West Sussex County Council Officers – Traffic Congestion Workshop
(Part 2).
The Chairman welcomed again Duncan Barratt, Divisional Manager Local
Development in Infrastructure at West Sussex County Council and his colleague Chris
Owen, Principal Transport Planner, Strategic Development. He thanked them for their
attendance at the previous meeting on 22nd July which had been most worthwhile and
for returning again to deal with some follow up questions and to progress the
discussions on local transport based issues in relation with the Core Strategy, and
specifically those that impact upon congestion.
Before focussing on the outstanding congestion questions the Chairman commented
that the work of the Three Tiers Group had taken on increasing significance in the light
of the “wicked act” of the Secretary of State requiring increased house building in Mid
Sussex over and above the already excessive number proposed. He said that this
would present increased challenges. He highlighted specifically that the key issue in
identifying the local potential for new house building does very much depend upon the
achievability or otherwise of the relief road. In this the professional input from the
officers of West Sussex County Council was seen as being particularly important.
Mr Barratt said that he and Mr Owen were grateful for the opportunity to conclude the
discussion regarding traffic congestion. They had identified the key issues that they felt
needed to be addressed and they recognised that many of the questions asked by
Town Councillors emanated from that. Because of the volume of questions asked and
the time available they were not in a position to give direct responses to all the
questions at the meeting but they would provide a written answer within the next four
weeks or so that would fully cover the issues raised.
1
Mr Owen said that the first key question to be asked is “Is the relief road deliverable?”
He said the key issues here are funding, planning constraints and cross boundary
issues.
With regard to funding Mr Owen reported that the developers have previously
confirmed that they can meet the costs of the transport package if 30% of housing is
affordable. This assurance was given in April 2007 but it was recognised that in the
light of the credit crunch there is greater uncertainty now with dropping property prices,
reducing land values and developers own financial problems. However there was
recognition that the property markets will recover eventually. The meeting was advised
that there are other potential sources of funding including the community infrastructure
levy and that it would be possible for a bid to be made to SEERA and the Regional
Transport Board for regional funding allocation or a contribution from the regional
infrastructure fund.
Mr Moody observed that there have been more recent informal discussions with
developers who have indicated that they see the credit crunch as possibly continuing
for a further 18 months. They suggested that this should not impact on viability or
commitment of a long-term scheme. They were however now suggesting a phased
approach in relation to the road building and development. He reminded Members that
there is a further meeting planned with the consortium for late in September following
the GOSE cross-boundary summit on 18th September.
In relation to planning constraints Mr Owen said that it was acknowledged that the
preferred route includes sections in the green belt and the High Weald Area of
Outstanding Natural Beauty. He said that neither designation rules out the relief road
in principal and that the need for the relief road within these areas and scope for
mitigation will need to be demonstrated through the planning process.
Turning to cross-boundary issues Mr Owen said that the duty of adjoining authorities to
cooperate was made clear at the GOSE meeting in October 2007. This message had
been strongly reinforced in the southeast plan proposed modifications. Surrey County
Council has made clear that they are not opposed in principal to the relief road but that
they are concerned at the effect of traffic, which would be generated within their
boundary. They now have a copy of the model projections for their analysis.
Conversely East Sussex County Council remains opposed to the relief road in principal
on traffic impact grounds. Mr Owen said that East Sussex County Council could not
identify any feasible practical solutions to mitigate against increased traffic flow within
their boundaries. They have also indicated that they would not cooperate with
compulsory purchase orders. In response to a question from Councillor Matthews Mr
Moody said that it is believed that the number of landowners who might be affected by
such compulsory purchase orders is less than 15. (Town Clerk‟s update. Since the
meeting Mr Moody has advised that the number of land ownerships that lie in
neighbouring authorities and that are affected by the relief road proposals are two in
Surrey and eight in East Sussex, of which one is East Sussex County Council itself.)
In summary to the question “Is the Relief Road deliverable?” Mr Owen said the County
Council‟s view is yes but that there are a number of uncertainties. He further said that
there is no reason at present for work not to continue. However he went on to say that
it is important to consider whether there may be an alternative.
The second key question for consideration was therefore “Is there are alternative to
the Relief Road?” Mr Owen said that current County and District Council policies
require a relief road. Indeed the 2007 modelling had concluded that only a full relief
road could meet the needs of the development and deliver required traffic relief. This
had also showed that reduced development with a partial relief road would produce
2
less relief to congestion than the development of the strategic development of 2500
homes with a full relief road. Recent 2008 model tests have shown scope for additional
benefits from junction improvements but these may be temporary. Further
consideration was considered justified. Mr Moody confirmed that further assessment
work has been undertaken recently by consultants working to Mid Sussex District
Council to help inform the Core Strategy and that work on model tests have been
concluded. These findings will be published very shortly.
Mention was next made of the “Coote” Route between the A22 Wych Cross and M23
Junction 10A using rural roads. This at a length of 12.5 kilometres was identified as
being three kilometres longer than the preferred route. This route, costed at £80
million, would be remote from the development and therefore funding may not be
possible, would be difficult and costly to meet design standards and was strongly
opposed by East Sussex County Council and unlikely to receive approval because of
its impact upon Ashdown Forest. As the route was not considered feasible by the
principal local authorities it had not been tested.
Next the Officers advised in relation to rat running that flow changes on selected
problem roads had been shown in the 2007 reports. The impact had not been studied
in detail, due to limits of the current modal. Further work is required here as advised. It
was appreciated that a number of the questions asked by the Three Tiers Group
related to rat running and these would be dealt with by formal written response.
The fourth key issue dealt with by Mr Owen and Mr Barratt revolved around the
question “Are growth forecasts valid?” In relation to housing numbers the Mid Sussex
district council estimate for new dwellings in East Grinstead was reported as 4,545 by
2026. Comparison of this figure with the model total for 2021 shows around 840 short
in East Grinstead while new houses in the rest of north Mid Sussex have been over
estimated by a similar amount. The model used the Department of Transport
TEMPRO forecasts based upon development plan estimates that were checked with
SEERA. Councillor Jerry said the approach may be sound adhering to TEMPRO
guidelines but he asked whether it was accurate. He asked whether Members could be
sure that traffic flows predicted now would be accurate 10 years hence. Mr Owen said
that methodology has evolved over the years, has professional support and is reflected
in Department for Transport guidelines. In his view the assessments are as accurate
as can be reasonable. Insofar as base material is concerned current patterns are
observable and are measured in surveys. Attention is paid to before and after
monitoring of performance against forecast through follow-up work undertaken during
the last 20 years.
With regard to the key issue of through traffic Mr Owen said that video and manual
surveys had been undertaken, the analysis of weekend surveys has been previously
reported, a further analysis of the weekday situation is required along with a further
interrogation of outputs from model tests to understand the mix of journeys likely to be
attracted by a relief road.
In relation to the modelling up date the officers said that the overall approach is sound
because it complies with the Department for Transport‟s required methodology and the
strategic development is fully represented in the correct locations. They said that the
2008 tests have included updated assumptions on junction design, employment and
bus routes. However certain aspects need reviewing including inaccuracies in the new
housing locations assumed and the inclusion of the same housing numbers in the do
minimum option as for the do something options. A further examination is also
required for Forest Row‟s forecasts including through traffic and rat running.
3
Councillor Matthews commented on something that had been said earlier in the
meeting. He wondered what is meant by a phased approach to development of the
relief road. He said that this is definitely not acceptable to him. He drew a comparison
with what has happened in Haywards Heath in relation to the Bolnore village
development and the relief road there, which has still not been concluded. Mr Moody
said that phasing was something that had been mentioned by the developers but was
not something that had been agreed by Mid Sussex District Council.
Councillor Matthews also said he understood the comments about problems with the
Coote Route. He equally recognised difficulties with building a road through the Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty and problems relating to compulsory purchase orders
and could foresee years of problems. He said that junction improvements are needed
now albeit they might only provide temporary relief. He said that he could not support
a lesser strategic development. In his view it had to be 2,500 houses and a relief road
or no road and no strategic development. Effectively it was all or nothing.
Councillor Brock said it is important to look at the East Sussex position and that he had
recently spoken with the Cabinet Member for East Sussex, Councillor Matthew Lock. It
was clear that East Sussex County Council wish to reduce traffic through Ashdown
Forest and that they have pursued this objective ever since they had purchased it and
they continue to encourage use of the recognised box. He considered that the
completion of the Haywards Heath relief road is essential and until this is completed
traffic wishing to travel between the A22 south of Forest Row and the A23 won‟t divert
onto the A272. He referred to this as the East Sussex showstopper and said the
completion of the Haywards Heath relief road must be prioritised. Mr Moody said that
work on the final stages of the Haywards Heath relief road is expected to commence
within a month.
Councillor Mrs Collins referred to a newspaper item dated 8th August 1985. This had
promised a report in 1986 with an indication of imminent real progress. This had come
to nothing. She said that we haven‟t moved on within the last 23 years, there had been
some tinkering but no real progress. She said that there continues to be emphasis on
the housing and not on resolving congestion.
Councillor Mrs Brunsdon asked how committed West Sussex County Council and Mid
Sussex District Council remain to seeing traffic improvements in East Grinstead in the
light of modification to the South East Plan. Mr Moody said that it is a reasonable
question to ask whether infrastructure links have been weakened and whether
developers might indeed suggest that. He said it is essential for principal authorities to
fight hard to achieve the congestion relief. He reaffirmed that Mid Sussex District
Council senior officers have major concerns at any proposed phased approach to
developing a road. He said that it was hard to see how a reduced scheme could be
considered to be acceptable if deliverable certainty for the full scheme could not be
provided.
Mr Barratt referred to problems of phased developments and to the outstanding
Haywards Heath relief road. He said that the community infrastructure levy would
enable authorities to borrow against future contributions likely to be received and that
this could enable infrastructure development to be brought forward earlier than would
otherwise be possible. He also acknowledged that Government proposals for
community infrastructure levy weakened links between specific development and
infrastructure needs related to those developments.
Councillor Mrs Ball said that she was concerned with the impact of the credit crunch.
She said that there was no evidential progress with regard to the promised Lingfield
Road junction works which are due to be funded from Section 106 funding
4
contributions. She was anxious that these should not be undertaken in isolation of
broader strategic improvements. In response to a question from Members regarding
the effects on traffic congestion of the Lingfield Road junction improvement, the
officers were unable to indicate whether these had been taken into account in the
recent congestion modelling. (Town Clerk‟s update. West Sussex County Council
officers have provided the following update since the meeting:
“The WSCC traffic signal scheme to be implemented next year consists of a three
arm, two lane entry layout constructed within current highway land. The scheme
included in the 2007 modelling that supported the EGAAP was a longer-term variant of
this scheme. The main difference is that this variant included an extended two lane
entry to the junction on the A22 south arm that involves changes to the St Margaret‟s
Loop railway bridge. The bridge works could potentially be implemented with developer
funding as a second stage of the WSCC scheme, as part of the longer term transport
package.”
Councillor Jerrey asked what works has been undertaken on encouraging the public to
use other modes of transport other than private cars. The officers drew attention to the
former East Grinstead Urban Transport Plan and the East Grinstead Area Transport
Plan. These made emphasis on moving some of the demand for travel to alternate
means of transport including encouraging cycling for example. They emphasised that
there is no antipathy from developers against road traffic. It was stressed that there
needs to be greater awareness about the need for sustainable transport options.
Councillor Matthews said that West Sussex County Council and Mid Sussex District
Council need to satisfy themselves that the relief road is still deliverable and affordable
before it is proceeded with. He had some concerns about the community infrastructure
levy. Mr Barrett said it would be necessary for the local authorities to take their
community infrastructure levy proposals through a public examination. It would be
necessary to total the costs of all infrastructure needs and divide this by the number of
houses to be built to identify a levy per unit, which would start with a single dwelling. It
was explained that Mid Sussex District Council can, if they wish, stick with Section 106
funding contribution as an alternative.
The Town Clerk said that he foresaw one problem of using the community
infrastructure levy scheme to borrow against future contributions likely to be received
as being that one generation would mortgage against the contributions of a future
generation. He was concerned that this would lead to a deficit situation in future years
as funds received would already have been spent and would not be available for
needs at that time. The officers agreed that this was a fair assessment that would
need to be addressed and guarded against.
At the end of the presentation and question and answer session the Chairman thanked
Mr Barratt and Mr Owen for their presentation and the helpful way in which they had
answered questions. He said the Group looked forward to receiving a written report of
answers to the various questions that had been previously raised by Members and
understood that this was likely to be received within the following month.
4 Mid Sussex District Council response to non-transport questions raised in relation to
Climate Change, Employment and Financial Viability.
Mr Moody said that he had noted from the written questions referred to the West
Sussex County Council officers by the Town Clerk that a number of these were non-
transport related. Accordingly he had prepared a detailed, but still draft, response to
those questions and tabled this response at the meeting. It was agreed that the Town
Clerk would attach this as Appendix A to the meeting and Members expressed their
gratitude to Mr Moody.
5
5 Core Strategy – Responses received.
Mr Moody advised that altogether some 5,500 responses had been received to the
Core Strategy. Those which were non-site specific are now accessible on the Mid
Sussex District Council web site www.midsussex.gov.uk and those relating to specific
sites will be posted in the near future.
Mr Moody also drew the Group‟s attention to the MVA Consultancy studies, which was
commissioned by Mid Sussex District Council in January 2008 to address transport
implications of the emerging Core Strategy. The main objectives of this Mid Sussex
Transport Strategy was to test the impact of the strategic development locations on the
road network in and around the district and to inform where transport infrastructure
improvements are likely to be required to enable individual developments to go ahead.
The final report from MVA Consultancy had now been received and published on the
Mid Sussex District Council web site and members of the Three Tiers Group were
encouraged to view this.
6 Future meetings.
The Town Clerk informed Members that it was originally intended that at the next
meeting in mid to late October there should be a specific discussion on infrastructure
in the light of information which it was hoped would have been received following the
request for information from service providers and West Sussex County Council that
had been requested by Mid Sussex District Council. However it was clear that more
information was needed than was currently available and indeed Mr Moody advised
that information from the service providers was slow in being received. However it was
clear that the need to provide the audit and assessment of needs is becoming a higher
priority for West Sussex County Council with the emergence of the community
infrastructure levy and it was therefore likely that this would now be available for a
meeting towards the latter end of November. Accordingly it was agreed that the next
meeting in October, on a date to be agreed with the Chairman, would focus upon
employment and the economic development and employment studies undertaken, and
for which purpose an invitation would be sent to Steve Tilbury, with the meeting after
that in November focussing upon the infrastructure deficit.
The meeting closed at 6.35pm.
6
APPENDIX A
East Grinstead Three Tiers Group - 11th September 2008
MSDC Draft Response to a Selection of (Non-Transport) Questions Raised
Climate Change
6 a) What actions have been taken, in relation to the impact of the transport package, to take account
of the new priorities in terms of 'climate change' introduced since the Structure Plan was adopted?
b) Has the Council adopted a standard procedure for evaluating this?
c) What were the outcomes?
7 a) What is the Council's estimate of the comparative amounts of carbon dioxide emissions
resulting from development at East Grinstead and development at Crabbet Park - MSDC site N/nn
- or the LEC site as a result of new car journeys generated?
Officer Response
6. It is assumed that the question relates to the recently introduced 'Planning Policy Statement:
Planning and Climate Change - Supplement to Planning Policy Statement 1'. This has placed climate
change considerations (both adapting and mitigating) as one of the issues that must be at the heart of
the planning system. The PPS highlights a number of ways to meet this requirement, including setting
local targets for renewable energy generation and sustainable buildings (something that MSDC will be
doing through the Core Strategy) and ensuring that new development sites can be serviced through
more sustainable modes of transport. A package of transport improvements (including public transport)
formed part of the AAP proposals.
It‟s also worth noting that with the various policies and guidance, concerning climate change, that have
recently been issued, none have stated that any planned new roads should not proceed due to the
global issue of climate change.
Greater sustainability in construction will be delivered through the implementation of the Code for
Sustainable Homes programme.
7. No estimate has been undertaken. As with all other Local Planning Authorities, when assessing
development options in the Sustainability Appraisal process an objective concerning climate change is used (one of
18 objectives) and/or objectives that can impact upon climate change are used (e.g. flood risk objective, road
congestion/sustainable transport objective). These objectives assess whether or not a development site will be able
to be easily accessed through sustainable means of transport, is within close proximity to potential employment
areas, community facilities and services and retail. It also assesses whether a site will be impacted upon as a result
of the inevitable impact of climate change (i.e. increased risk of flooding). The SA for the Core Strategy identifies
this, but does not provide exact figures for CO2 emissions. This is not something that is required at the
Development Plan stage.
At a Development Plan stage it is almost impossible to predict what the predicted CO2 emissions will be from a
development. This is due to people’s behaviour (i.e. the way they live their lives) having the greatest impact on
climate change (i.e. where they choose to shop, how they travel, the type of car they own etc rather than the built
form of the development which will largely have to conform to the same standards no matter where it is located).
7
Employment
8. a) How many new jobs does the model assume will be created on the Strategic Development?
b) How is this figure derived?
c) How many jobs per 1,000m2 does this equate to? How does this compare with
the job density achieved on the most recent Birches Industrial Estate extension?
d) What percentage of these new jobs are assumed to be filled by residents of the new
development?
e) The Masterplan now specifies 15ha of employment space - is this in addition to
employment space already identified for development in the Local Plan?
Officer Response
8 a-c) Using generally accepted ratios,15ha of land would give rise to approx 60,000 sq m floorspace (normal
assumed ratio is 4,000 sq m per ha).
On the basis of employee / floorspace ratio figures supplied to us by WSCC previously in connection with EG, this
could give rise to between 1,875 and 3,160 jobs (based on 1 job per 32 sq m for small businesses and 1 per 19 sq
m for offices. This equates to 31 jobs per 1000 sq m for small businesses and 53 jobs per 1000 sq m for offices.
B8 uses would have a much lower ratio of jobs per sq m. (say 1 per 88 sq m using a figure from Kettering) and so
employment generation would be much less. However, it is unlikely that B8 would form a major element of this
allocation.
It is hard to equate this with the latest phases of the Birches, or any sites for that matter. These are inevitably
averages and different estates will perform in different ways, as will areas within them. For example Goldman
Sachs have taken a large building on phase 3 of the Birches but with a very low number of staff. This gives a low
ratio but would not necessarily be repeated elsewhere. We can only really assume averages.
(d) The aim is provide an appropriate level of new employment floorspace to accommodate as far as possible the
needs of residents in the new developments. This will help to secure the most sustainable form of development by
providing local employment opportunities that will reduce the need for travel to other locations. The draft Core
Strategy identifies the objective of reducing out-commuting from all the Mid Sussex towns, and maximising local
employment opportunities will help to achieve that objective. It is clearly unrealistic to expect all of the local
residents to be employed within the town. Equally it would be totally improper to provide large numbers of new
homes without at the same time making appropriate provision in the most sustainable manner for where these new
residents will work. The planning process cannot dictate where people choose to live and work, and in any case
the range of jobs available is unlikely to match the range of employment required. In a vibrant economic area such
as the Gatwick Diamond, and accessibility by road and public transport, there will always be an element of out-
commuting to other centres, including to Crawley / Gatwick nearby and further afield to London. However,
appropriate strategic land-use planning and the delivery of sustainable mixed-use developments including new
employment provision, can help to create opportunities for people to live and work in the most sustainable way.
The draft Core Strategy seeks to achieve this objective.
(e) Yes, the 15ha is in addition to existing local plan allocations.
Note: Please also see draft Topic Paper 8.18 ‘East Grinstead Employment’, which can now be viewed at
www.midsussex,gov.uk/corestrategy . This recently published draft provides an initial officer response to
representations submitted on East Grinstead employment issues that formed part of the Pre-Submission
Core Strategy consultation.
8
Viability
27. Barton Wilmore have recently made comments saying that they will only pay for infrastructure
improvements required as a result of their development and would not provide funding for existing
deficits. They say that is all that they can be required to meet.
a) Does the Council agree with these statements?
b) If not, what infrastructure does the Council consider it can force the developers to fund
and on what basis? (under which section of planning law)
28. Taylor Wimpey announced this week that their half yearly profits have collapsed by 90%.
Persimmon and other members of the Consortium have announced similar disastrous
results. The Consortium have said, in terms, that the East Grinstead development is
marginal. Most recently in their requested changes to the draft Core Strategy, because
they say of the increased infrastructure burden imposed by the need to construct the relief
road - the relief road is to cost £61m plus land and other costs. The Consortium argue
that the Council should change the policy for Strategic Development at East Grinstead to
one of a phased approach. The road comprises 60% of the total 109 million which (the
AAP evidence said) would be generated by the strategic development.
a) What leads the Council to consider that the road can still be afforded by the development?
b) What items of infrastructure does the Council consider could be included on top of the road
cost?
c) What items on that list does the Council consider essential - ie would be 'dealbreakers'?
d) The Structure Plan lays out a specific list of infrastructure, does the council still expect this to
be funded by the developer consortium in addition to the transport package? If not, what items is
the Council prepared to see dropped if finances demand?
Officer Response
27 a) In many respects this statement is correct. Guidance is clear in that planning obligations
should not be used solely to resolve existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision. Instead, the
planning system is charged with the delivery of sustainable development in the widest sense,
and therefore with ensuring that the very things that make the quality of life good are provided
for (or are not lost or weakened but are maintained or improved) when an existing community
grows. In reality, the provision of new and improved infrastructure commonly provides
considerable benefits to the wider community and where appropriate the District Council will
seek to ensure that the widest possible appropriate benefits are gained. The key elements of
planning obligations are that they must be:
- relevant to planning
- necessary to make the proposed development acceptable
- directly related to the proposed development
- fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development
- reasonable in all other respects.
b) The Government‟s policy on infrastructure planning is set out in PPS12, which stresses the
importance of infrastructure planning to underpin the preparation of the LDF.
Circular 05/05 provides the current guidance on the use of planning obligations in England under
section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 as substituted by the Planning and
Compensation Act 1991. The Cummunity Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is the proposed new charge
which local authoriites will be empowered to charge on most types in new development (see
guidance 2008)
The South East Plan Proposed Modifications policy C7 now states that, ‘the scale and pace of
development will depend on sufficient capacity being available in existing infrastructure to meet
the needs of new development. Where this cannot be demonstrated the scale and pace of
development will be dependent on additional capacity being released through demand
management measures or better management of existing infrastructure, or through provision of
new infrastructure. Where new development creates a need for additional infrastructure a
9
programme of delivery should be agreed before development begins.‟ The „conditionality‟
clause (stating that development shall not proceed until local authorities are satisfied that
necessary infrastructure is in place or will be provided in time) has been deleted.
The importance of the satisfactory provision of infrastructure is recognised throughout the draft AAP and
Core Strategy. The significant improvement of the District’s infrastructure, services and facilities is a key
element of the Council’s vision for Mid Sussex over the period to 2026. The need to ensure that new
development is accompanied by necessary and timely infrastructure to build sustainable communities is
also recognised as a key issue. Although polices will require that new development helps to fund
infrastructure requirements the Council will also take every opportunity to press the Government and
other agencies for any other funding that may be available to deliver the infrastructure needs for the
district.
The general development principles relating to all potential strategic development sites refer to the need
to make provision for necessary infrastructure of all types, and the individual allocation options identify
additional site-specific infrastructure issues that would need to be addressed if development is to go
ahead.
Note: Please also see draft Topic Papers 10.37 and 10.38 ‘Infrastructure’, which can now
be viewed at www.midsussex,gov.uk/corestrategy . This recently published draft
provides an initial officer response to representations submitted on Infrastructure issues
that formed part of the Pre-Submission Core Strategy consultation.
28a) At no time has the Consortium informed the Council that they could not fund the „relief road‟
from the development. Their stated position (29/03/07) concluded that the consortium were
confident that the scheme, including the funding of the relief road, was still viable. Their position
since that time has changed only in how they see the development being delivered. Due to
delivery issues they consider that a phased approach would be preferable. The consortium‟s
suggestion is that the first phase of the scheme would provide a package of transport measures
that are required to serve and support the initial phase of development based on the implications
of the initial phase of development on the highway network. This would include a link road /
partial relief road. The consortium go on to make it clear that they would also pay into an
infrastructure fund set up to collect payments for the full relief road required to support the
second phase of development.
In recent informal discussions, representatives of the consortium have indicated that the „credit
crunch‟ is unlikely to have significant impact on long-term plans or their commitment to funding
infrastructure needs at East Grinstead. The expectation is that the „crunch‟ will last 18-24
months and that the market will have recovered by the time houses will have commenced at the
East Grinstead strategic location. In addition, MSDC have requested a meeting with the
consortium at the end of September to discuss this and other issues.
28b) This information is set out in detail within numerous documents (Topic Papers, AAP, Council
Reports, and Response to Liberal Democrat Group request for Information 2 - July 07 etc).
See: www.midsussex.gov.uk/egstrategicdevelopment
28c and d) Infrastructure requirements will be set out within the appropriate Development Plan
Document and the Development and Infrastructure (SPD). The delivery of all essential
elements of infrastructure would be the subject of a S106 agreement. Planning permission for
the development will only be granted on the agreement and signing of the S106.
As with any scheme (and as set out in the Development and Infrastructure SPD), if a developer
considers that the infrastructure requirements are too onerous, making the development
unviable, and he seeks a relaxation, he will need to demonstrate this by submitting with his
planning application a financial appraisal. This will be assessed by the Council.
10