Object
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Representation ID: 24062
Received: 28/11/2018
Respondent: Mrs Diana Hughes
Legally compliant? No
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Not specified
This site is within the Pevensey Levels SAC, SSSI, Ramsar Hydrological Catchment. The risks to the Pevensey Levels of polluted surface run-off from a development are considerable. It has not been demonstrated that even a well-engineered SUDS will guarantee that flooding of the Levels with polluted water will never occur. Failure of the SUDS would seriously damage the eco-systems of the SSSI/Ramsar wetlands and leave RDC open to litigation because the Ramsar wetlands are internationally recognised.
Any outline planning application for development next to such a sensitive site must be wholeheartedly approved by the Environment Agency and Natural England. This isn't the case with the current outline planning application; the Environment Agency in particular has raised major objections which must be overcome before any outline planning application can even be considered. Even if mitigation proposals for the SUDS could be considered feasible, these would have to be regularly monitored and maintained for the lifetime of the development - and that cannot be guaranteed.
BEX9 should never have been considered a possibility for development because it is a local authority's duty to protect the sensitive areas for which it has responsibility.
BEX9 should be removed from the DaSA Local Plan.
This site is within the Pevensey Levels SAC, SSSI, Ramsar Hydrological Catchment. The risks to the Pevensey Levels of polluted surface run-off from a Spindlewood development are considerable. It has not been demonstrated that even a well-engineered SUDS will guarantee that flooding of the Levels with polluted water will never occur. Failure of the SUDS would seriously damage the eco-systems of the SSSI/Ramsar wetlands and leave RDC open to litigation because the Ramsar wetlands are internationally recognised.
Any outline planning application for development next to such a sensitive site must be wholeheartedly approved by the Environment Agency and Natural England. This is not the case with the current outline planning application; the Environment Agency in particular has raised major objections which must be overcome before any outline planning application can even be considered. Even if mitigation proposals for the SUDS could be considered feasible, these would have to be regularly monitored and maintained for the lifetime of the development - and that cannot be guaranteed.
BEX9 should never have been considered a possibility for development because it's a local authority's duty to protect the sensitive areas for which it has responsibility.
BEX9 should be removed from the DaSA Local Plan.