Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21375

Received: 26/09/2013

Respondent: Miss Judith Rogers

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

Mod 7.4 MAIN MODIFICATION NOT LEGALLY COMPLIANT:
The sustainability reportfor the rural areas is not sufficiently detailed to give a proper assessment of sustainability of additional housing in each individual village.


MAIN MODIFICATION NOT SOUND:
The sustainability report for the 'rural ares' cannot be said to support the level of housing. This report is not sufficient for the level of development proposed for the villages. A separate report for each of the villages where substantial numbers of houses are proposed must be produced.
3 main areas of concern are flooding, affordable housing, and health provision.

Supporting Evidence: http://www.rother.gov.uk/media.cfm?mediaid=20594

Full text:

Mod 7.4 MAIN MODIFICATION NOT LEGALLY COMPLIANT:
The sustainability report for the rural areas is not sufficiently detailed to give a proper assessment of sustainability of additional housing in each individual village.

MAIN MODIFICATION NOT SOUND:
The sustainability report for the 'rural areas' cannot be said to support the level of housing. This report is not sufficient for the level of development proposed for the villages. A separate report for each of the villages where substantial numbers of houses are proposed must be produced as each village will have its own set of problems. This work must have been carried to enable RDC to produce the 'global' rural areas report. To amalgamate their problems in this way is of detriment to the villages and shows a lack of concern from RDC for their quality of life. 3 areas of special concern in this document are:
1) Flooding : This information is vital for villages like Robertsbridge which has severe problems with flooding even with the flood defences built. Robertsbridge is built in a valley with the river Rother running through the middle. The flood defences were built to cater for current housing levels and protect the centre of the village. However, houses on the slopes are now also vulnerable with rain water running down the roads, into housing estates and causing damage to fences and houses. To build on greenfield sites, thus increasing the run off from additional housing would only make this problem worse. I submit as evidence copies of photographs of the flooding in 2001 which show the extent of the problem.
2 : 'Live in a sustainably built and affordable home'. I submit, as evidence, an e-mail from Keiran O'Leary a housing development officer at RDC. This shows that for local people on local wages, there is still little chance of affoding their own home and being left with only a rent option. In my conversation with Mr O'Leary prior to this e-mail, he admitted that the 'London factor' would stop most local people being able to purchase a property even if labelled affordable.
3 : 'Improve the health and well-being of the population....' Increased housing will not change the health of the population. Developers may offer a new doctors surgery as part of their plans, but without extra medical staff to work in them, then the health of the residents of a village would be worse not better. Analysis should have been done regarding the number of new houses/residents per doctor or nurse to ensure that current residents are not penalised. Currently, some residents in Robertsbridge (elderly or not) have to travel to Battle to see a doctor.

Further supporting evidence was submitted with the representation and can be accessed using the following link:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=20594