HG3/HG4 - An admission that is unexplained is why is it that HG3 and HG4 that appear in the proposal appear to only be a small section of the original area that was marked as DS4 in the 2006 plan. Essentially it is unclear why a large area of land that was originally marked as part of DS4 area (to the immediate left [West] of the marked HG3 site) was excluded and not considered as a site in this proposal?

HG9 - We agree that any development would be wholly unacceptable within the area marked as HG9. As the proposal states, this is a wholly rural area relating to the wider landscape, it is countryside used for farming and forms part the valley to the east of Hurst Green. We agree there would be clear issues with Core Strategy Policies OSS1, OSS4, OSS5, RA1, EN1, EN5 and TR3.

HG11 - From the evidence presented we disagree with the proposed position regarding HG11. If development must take place, which we believe is ill-advised in Hurst Green at present; HG11 would offer the ability to build a number of homes, in a layout and with plot sizes similar to the next door houses at South View Close. The current pedestrian access could be easily improved, along with reconsideration following recognition that being a village location, any family moving to Hurst Green will in all probability have at least one car, if not more.

Other Sites - The site currently occupied by Ernest Doe in the centre of the village, in a similar way to the Caravan Tech site, could well be a prime location for future housing within existing development boundaries, if the owner was happy to relocate - the farm machinery business, of which we are a customer, perhaps being more at home outside of the village, rather than on the busy A21. Perhaps moving to the site currently occupied by the garden centre and nursery just outside the village on the A265.

We agree with the assessment of the HG17 site, but not the allocation.