QUESTION 55: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Beckley Four Oaks? If not, which sites should be preferred?

I agree with the sites, with some suggested modifications and cautions

No objection to the proposed allocations in Beckley Four Oaks. According to the Historic Landscape Characterisation site FO12 is early post medieval (1500-1599) regular piecemeal enclosure in origin, and site FP15 is late 19th/20th century field amalgamation. Both sites have historic field boundaries that should be protected.

Buddens Green would be my preferred site for reasons set out in response to Question 57.

Buddens Green because better for children for school, buses etc.

Yes providing an allocation of the new proposed dwellings is made for people who have a connection with BECKLEY and sufficient local amenities are provided to support the increase in people living in the village, i.e. Doctors, Dentist, School places, etc

Yes I believe these are the sensible options for development.

I would like to offer my whole hearted support to the new houses proposed in Beckley, East Sussex. Although I do not live there (my parents live at Church Farm Bungalow, High Street, Beckley, East Sussex. TN31 6RS) - we are a family with 3 children, who are still saving to buy a house. Even with a considerably large disposit saved, we are still unable to purchase a house/property that would suit our needs.

The huge number of people who seem to be against these plans, are already home owners, who have often given hand outs to their own children to enable them to purchase properties, therefore offering a leg up.

For everyone else, those houses are important for the development of the village. Many years ago, Beckley was a vibrant village with many fantastic amenities for the villagers - all have shut. All that is on offer now is the village hall, school & green. More houses in the long term may offer opportunities for entrepreneurs, making the currently rather dead village into a vibrant opportunity rich place to live again.

I feel there is a lot of bullying by older residents, who in fairness are not going to be around to support the economy of the village for much longer, Beckley needs to attract new young families who are wanting to contribute to the economy and social development of such a village. It is very selfish and short sighted of the older generation to take advantage of their copious spare time to rally against the housing development. When the younger families are obviously very busy with their children and jobs.

Please, please push this plan ahead & consider the huge statistical imbalance of any peoples representing the opposition - I feel this is not a fair representation for the time restrained young families who do not have parents that give huge deposits to get them on the property ladder.

I do not agree with the proposal to develop the area for residential homes in Hobbs Lane. Beckley is defined in the AONB as a dispersed settlement based upon non agricultural rural industries. It is the will of Parliament as set out in section 85 of the Crow Act 2000 that Councils preserve & enhance AONBs. This proposal continues to destroy the High Weald AONB designation by proposing more houses where a considerable amount of social housing already exists. Villagers would like small developments dotted around the village.

Preferred site FO12 should not be included as it constitutes the green gap between the communities of Beckley and Four Oaks. Logic would argue for sites BE10 and/or FO13, and roadside development on FO8 and/or FO4.

Yes

Yes

I agree

Question 1 (DaSA question 55)

It is not clear if proper consideration has been given to community facilities in relation to these sites, combined with those at Northiam. Do doctor's surgery and primary schools have adequate capacity? Public transport to doctor's' surgery is inadequate.

Yes

No. I personally would prefer Manroys site.

We think Buddens Green site should be preferred over Manroys. Manroys would be better with less houses.

I know progress must happen but a footpath at the end of our garden is not acceptable. All we ask is you leave the field at the end of the gardens.

Yes

Yes

No.

Buddens Green site, which was given free by Forthington Parker to the Parish Council and should be our first choice.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

I have no objection in principle to the development of either site subject to certain conditions beneficial to Beckley and its fast disappearing 'typical Sussex village' character:

1.1: These properties must be 'affordable' (a totally meaningless word conjured up by moronic politicians) and built for bona fide local people (similar to the Buddens Green and lcklesham 'Five villages' concepts):

1.2: 'Affordability': These must not only be affordable (ie: the 3-times income 80% mortgages of old before the financial institutions and governments went mad in 1987 with 5-times, 110% mortgages - the primary factor in unrealistic house prices), but must also be comfortably large starter homes (not shoe-boxes) to replace those several small properties in the village lost through unrestricted gentrification in recent years. More importantly at their sale, these new houses must remain 'affordable' by covenant for the very last thing Beckley needs are greedy property developers and speculators.

1.3: To that end both sites should be local-need rental (the majority) and shared ownership (the minority) under a bona fide housing association, or as Rother council houses. Those on low local wages must have absolute priority over commuters on higher London-weighted incomes.

Only FO15

FO15 certainly. FO12 only is an alternative brownfield site is not available.

Yes

The existing Buddens Green development site was an exception site, the land having been donated to the community by a local landowner, the late George Fotheringham-Parker. The development was solely granted for existing children of villagers who have been priced out of the area as far as other freehold houses were concerned. The remainder of the site to the West was also donated to the Blue Cross, but subsequently sold. There have been two applications for development on this site, both developments refused by the Rother District Council and also at appeal on the grounds that the open spaces in Beckley and particularly along Main Street should be maintained as they enhance the village.
Northiam, Peasmarsh and Brede have all suffered from ribbon development and the village atmospheres have been totally lost.
Furthermore site FO12 is subject to severe flooding and the plan I have inspected of the proposed development would be totally inappropriate, as there is insufficient car parking space allocated and flats adjoining Main Street are again inappropriate.
The most sensible development areas, and I refer to other assessed sites, on the plan, would be those to round off Four Oaks area, namely FO2, FO9 and the western position of FO8 with access to Main Street.
In respect of the proposed development at the Manroy Engineering site, FO15, this area has always been designated for light industrial use and, again, any residential development on this site would be most inappropriate. The existing building is quite modern and could be split up into small workshops. Furthermore there is always a parking problem in this area and traffic both from the garage of the ex-mushroom factory, causes problems form time to time.
The traffic at Four Oaks roundabout is intense, particularly when school children are attempting to cross this dangerous road. I have been a resident in Beckley for over 40 years and I fully accept that further residential development must be provided, but in appropriate place where the charm of the village is not affected.