When the article ‘Change public art set for Midhurst’ was originally published in your November 17 edition of the Midhurst and Petworth Observer, I must admit that I missed its significance at the time, until I looked at the paper again a few days ago.
It is assumed that the fund referred to is the 15 per cent of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which is passed from the Charging Authority (CDC) to the town council following payment by Affinity Sutton, the developers, of the convent site as part of their planning permission.
This levy is intended to fund a range of infrastructure, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals and other health and social care facilities.
Under Section 216  of the Planning Act 2008, and Regulation 59 as amended in 2012 and 2o13 the definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities at local level, such as play areas, parks, green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, together with police stations and other community safety facilities.
My query is, whether the possible action of Midhurst Town Council to commission a piece of public art, paid for by this fund, is in fact the best way to use the money, when there is so much the town needs under the heading of ‘infrastructure, community safety facilities’ or indeed local ‘sports facilities’.
Malcolm Hutchings FRICS