Comment

Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Representation ID: 22142

Received: 02/02/2017

Respondent: Lady Susan Rowe

Representation Summary:

Proposed allocation (PEA1) is against the good of the village for the following reasons:

Access onto the A268 does not have suitable vision from either direction.

Drainage is a problem and could not sustain additional houses without major works.

Public transport through the village is critically low point.

The Electricity Board has increased the capacity, but it is questionable whether this is enough to sustain another 45 houses.

Peasmarsh has taken its fair share of housing and a further 45 houses would upset the balance and adversely affect the school and medical facilities.

I recommend this allocation be refused.

Full text:

Your proposed allocation of PEA1 as a possible site to build 45 houses in Peasmarsh is very much against the good of the village as far as I am concerned for the following reasons:

The access onto the A268 does not have suitable vision from either direction but in particular from the North West from the Cock Inn.

Drainage is a problem. The whole area is poorly drained and could not sustain an additional 45 houses without major planning works affecting the layout around the A268.

The public transport through the village is at critically low point at present. It is planned that 40% of the 45 houses (i.e. 18) are to be occupied by people requiring affordable houses. These families are likely to need good public transport to enable them to access jobs in the area. At the moment this services is not available.

The electricity to the village will need consideration. Within the last year the Electricity Board has increased the capacity to the village at Mackerel Hill because the supply to the village was at breaking point. It is questionable as to whether this increase is enough to sustain another 45 houses.

Finally I feel Peasmarsh has taken its fair share of housing and other development over recent years and a further 45 houses would upset the balance of the village and would adversely affect the numbers going to the school and put pressure on the medical facilities.

I therefore recommend that this possible allocation be refused.