QUESTION 57: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEC2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Comment

Representation ID: 22071

Received: 15/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Christopher Broadbent

I agree with this site and the number of dwellings. However, it is imperative that the open land to the west is secured in perpetuity as amenity land and does not fall prey to future development.

Comment

Representation ID: 22087

Received: 18/01/2017

Respondent: Mr A.J Brown

Yes, I agree with this site. Better access for children for school at Beckley and children sing the buses for senior schools elsewhere.

Comment

Representation ID: 22091

Received: 18/01/2017

Respondent: Mrs R Brown

Yes I agree with this site. Better access for school and children using the buses.

Comment

Representation ID: 22099

Received: 20/01/2017

Respondent: Stephen Carter

Agreed providing the development in this area is maintained as stated in Policy BEC2.

Comment

Representation ID: 22104

Received: 24/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Michael Rowe

Yes, I agree with these requirements, including the provision of affordable housing.

Comment

Representation ID: 22112

Received: 26/01/2017

Respondent: Ann Jones

I agree with the requirements of policy BEC 2.

Comment

Representation ID: 22127

Received: 28/01/2017

Respondent: Mr Roger Burrows

The proposal should include homes near the road for the elderly, should include (less dense) development on the site currently designated as 'amenity' and should be sold as serviced plots to individuals and couples who can then develop them themselves (with the usual planning laws apply) These proposals would make for a better community.

Comment

Representation ID: 22139

Received: 02/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Zai Koder

This is an appropriate use of this site. The dwellings would be an extension to the existing cul de sac and would be on land not subject to the drainage problems at the front of the field

Comment

Representation ID: 22607

Received: 19/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Bernard Baverstock

The Title Deed for the land to the rear of the existing eight houses at Buddens Green which is in the possession of BPC has been worded in such a way that casts doubt on the viability of building. Firstly, the PC needs the consent of the 1995 vendor before any development; & secondly consent for further houses would need consent to be obtained from all the existing residents of Buddens Green. Additionally the donor of the land made a section 106 order that further complicates the issue. It would at any rate be too high density.

Comment

Representation ID: 22673

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: CPRE Sussex

No - it should be deleted.

Comment

Representation ID: 22958

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Brian Turner

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 22962

Received: 07/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Katherine Hepburn

Question 3 (DaSA question 57)

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 22971

Received: 10/02/2017

Respondent: Mr T Jones

I agree

Comment

Representation ID: 22975

Received: 10/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Mary Howse

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 22980

Received: 10/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Christine Whiting

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 22984

Received: 10/02/2017

Respondent: Miss Donna Stradwick

No, we would need speed pumps and hedges and fences put in place.

I live at Buddens Green which would mean cars etc. coming past my house and building behind and at the side of me. I feel the village cannot sustain more houses.

The infrastructure wouldn't be enough.

This development would mean more cars and people.

Why can't places like Browns' Garage be developed?

Also, with the building being behind me as well, surely this will open up more building on green sites encroaching on fields and wildlife.

Comment

Representation ID: 22990

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Garner & Mrs Dawes

Please consider the existing tenants' view of fields and trees. Don't let progress kill the beauty.

Comment

Representation ID: 22993

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs P Brain

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 22997

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mrs Anthea Setter

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 23001

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs R Pannell

Yes.

When the new houses were built on our allotment site in Hobbs Close we were given to understand that an alternative site for the allotments would be found?

Comment

Representation ID: 23005

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Angie Lewis

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 23009

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Paul Lewis

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 23013

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: D Brown

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 23017

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Anthony Reiss

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 23021

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Anna Reiss

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 23025

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Barry Jones

To the best of my recollection Buddens Green and the adjacent western field were left by Rose-Mary Fotheringham-Parker 'for the benefit of the village' hence the Buddens Green exceptional development of 1991 for those with bona fide local connection, either rented or shared-ownership. The land behind (to the southern tree line only) was allocated by Beckley Parish Council in the mid-1990s for an extension of this local needs development. This must remain the policy here; the present association must be offered the land for that express purpose, and not commercial property developers. Its our village!

Comment

Representation ID: 23029

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Diane M Marsh

No

Comment

Representation ID: 23033

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr David Marsh

I agree FO15 certainly. FO12 only is an alternative brownfield site is not available.

Comment

Representation ID: 23037

Received: 03/02/2017

Respondent: Mr & Mrs J Northover

Yes

Comment

Representation ID: 23277

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Mr Matthew Horton

Q.57 - Policy BEC2 should be deleted in its entirety for the site specific reasons given in section 2 (iii) of my seperate letter of objection dated 20th February 2017 together with the accompanying contextual analysis in sections 2 (i) and 2 (ii) of that letter. The site the subject of Policy BEC2 should be replaced by a new site comprising SHLAA for site FO2 combined with part of SHLAA site FO8 as described in section 2 (vi) of that letter.