Ref DaSA Part C
Dear Sir

I am writing to you regarding the above proposed plan as it applies to Peasmarsh.

After consulting with various local people and after attending yesterday's Parish Council meeting it is apparent there is widespread objection to the proposal and indeed real alarm at the apparent paucity of research made by Council before issuing the proposals.

Whilst attached you will find an amalgam of various issues discussed and our reasons behind them I would draw your particular attention to two particular problems.

Several of my neighbours in so called Griffin Lane have endurde many problems with flooding at times of heavy/moderate rainfall when our gardens are turned into lakes as current drainage from the proposed site, cannot cope properly. Indeed in the 24 years I have lived at this address I have spent considerable sums trying to rectify this, to no avail. Your proposals for building on this land can only exacerbate this problem hugely, unless a major upgrade of surface water drainage and sewage is conducted well in advance of any building. Failure to do so would be a wilful example of you ignoring this fundamental problem.

The second major issue is the traffic access for the proposed site directly onto the A268 as suggested. Frankly, I am amazed that the proposed entry/exit point is regarded a safe and viable without major changes i.e. traffic calming, roundabouts etc.

As ever, the devil is in the detail but it is clear major expenditure is needed to overcome the problems referred to above. In an effort to be positive regarding development regarding question 81 for alternative sites you will see these are suggested which would have less onerous cost requirements for the council and would remove the danger of direct access onto the A268 main road.

The attached document will give you a more comprehensive view of our discontent with the proposal and I strongly disagree with the plan as it stands

Yours faithfully

Roger Evans.

Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) see 11.13 which requires planners to make "fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside".

In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.

If the comments below in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment Mid educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.

However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above.

In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA 1.

(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to A268.

(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses.

(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site.

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3

Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope