Object
Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy
Representation ID: 21408
Received: 16/09/2013
Respondent: Mrs Anne Stevens
Legally compliant? Not specified
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
1. Robertsbridge would not be able to keep its individual rural character. There is already a 40% increase in the last 10-years.
2. Cars/traffic already causing congestion. Parking is difficult.
3. Already a 'flood risk'. Why aggravate the situation?
4. Where lie the 'benefits'? More jobs where? So who would buy new/affordable housing?
5. Planning has not been a 'collective business'. There has been little or no consultation with the villages!
6. Can we ensure new buildings would be in keeping (infrastructure?)
7. Do we really have 'green belt protection'?
8. Robertsbridge and area is an 'area of outstanding beauty'
1. 6-7.7 Robertsbridge would not be able to keep its individual rural character. NPFF Point no. 80. 'Encroachment' and 'loss of character'. There is already a 40% increase in the last 10 years. NPFF Point no. 50. Why more?
2. 5.2.9. Cars/traffic already causing congestion. Parking is difficult.
3. NPPF Point 103. Already a 'flood risk'. Why aggravate the situation?
4. 5.2.1. Where lie the 'benefits'? 5.2.9. More jobs where? So who would buy new/affordable housing? People from London?
5. NPPF. Planning has not been a 'collective business'. There has been little or no consultation with the villages!
6. NPPF Point 55. Can we ensure new buildings would be in keeping with village - Point 66 - they would certainly affect the community! (infrastructure?)
7. NPPF Point 79. Do we really have 'green belt protection'?
8. NPPF Point 109. Robertsbridge and area is an 'area of outstanding beauty' - why spoil it with more houses!