Object

Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Representation ID: 21475

Received: 12/09/2013

Respondent: Mr Christopher Stevens

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Not specified

Representation Summary:

This modification is called into question as the housing for Robertsbridge is due to accommodate is far higher than any rural area. This is because it has been dubbed "a service centre or hub". This modification is only part in keeping with the SA and should be redrafted to include other points mentioned in the SA.

It is contrary to NPPF point 17.

There have been no meaningful engagements with the rural communities on such issues and because the modification is not practical as it has no business use included in new build figures, this should be redrafted or deleted.

Full text:

This modification within the SA has been called into question as the numbers of houses Robertsbridge is due to accommodate is far higher than any rural area. This is because it has been dubbed "a service centre or hub". In fact the SA makes options available to councils and government rather than wholesale increased house building. This modification is only part in keeping with the SA and should be redrafted to include other points mentioned in the SA.

It is contrary to NPPF point 17 which states "be genuinely plan-led, empowering local people to shape their surroundings, with succinct local and neighbourhood plans setting out a positive vision for the future of the area. Plans should be kept up-to-date, and be based on joint working and co-operation to address larger than local issues. They should provide a practical framework within which decisions on planning applications can be made with a high degree of predictability and efficiency";

There have been no meaningful engagements with the rural communities on such issues and because the modification is not practical as it has no business use included in new build figures, this should be redrafted or deleted.