Seaford: Homes ‘will spark traffic chaos’

A NEW housing development in Seaford will cause traffic chaos in the town centre.

That’s according to town councillors who have objected over plans to build the 27 homes at the former Caffyns site in Sutton Park Road.

The area has been earmarked for the development and if the plan gets the go-ahead then commercial units for shops, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishment or a hot food takeaway could also be created.

Developer West Ridge Properties wants to transform the site but the proposals were not welcomed by members of Seaford Town Council’s planning committee who discussed the plans last Thursday.

The proposals, which include a communal back garden and car parking facilities, raised concerns over the limited amount of parking space.

Members, who are able to comment on the plans, heard while there was room for 27 cycling racks included in the design, there was only around a quarter of this amount for parking.

The development would consist of two houses while the rest of the homes would be flats, with 25 per cent earmarked for affordable housing.

Committee member and Councillor Anthony White said he felt the build was an overdevelopment, “Having looked through the plans in depth I would say with 27 apartments there’s a distinct lack of parking.”

His concerns were echoed by Councillor Sarah McStravick and Councillor Bob Allen, who said, “I too am worried about the parking situation, we know what the sites around this site are like.

“I know highways have said that they are trying to discourage car ownership but I think the people that are likely to buy these flats will most likely own a car.

“If they do where the hell are they going to put it?

“If you live in these flats you will have visitors. However, good the public transport system is, visitors will want to arrive in a car.”

Councillor Ian White said he felt there was not a need for more flats in the town when at the last count there were some 200 empty.

He added, “I think it’s an overdevelopment and certainly the parking issue must be addressed.”

He said he felt Section 106 monies should be allocated to health facilities.

While councillors said they welcomed the sympathetic design and the infill of vacant sites they objected to the plans on the grounds of being an overdevelopment, lack of parking and the resulting congestion in neighbouring streets.

The committee said while they supported the Section 106 agreement for affordable housing it should also be allocated to health care facilities in the town and consideration given to contribution to local access to transport, cycling routes and recreational improvements.

A final decision on the application will be made by Lewes District Council at a later date.