QUESTION 62: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Given arguments for site rejections are often spurious.
Favour BO9-recent successful linear development to west. Better safe access than BO16, landscape buffer to south no less pertinent than for BO16, BO17.
Favour BO10,11,13. As a combined site within heart of village. Impact depends on design quality, landscaping. Access off B2089. Combining negates constraints.
Favour BO15, adjacent to established community. Impact depends on siting, design.
Favour part BO14. Why BO14 so large? Serves to satisfy the given reasons for rejection. South corner, access off Northiam Rd. Arguments/solutions little different to BO16.
BO12 ribbon?! Good sight lines onto 30mph. Screening also relevant.

Landscape

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS

Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.

Archaeology

Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF.

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219

Broad Oak

Yes

Ecology

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219

Broad Oak

Yes, depending on the ecological value of the meadow (e.g. if it is a S41 Habitat of Principal Importance), mitigation/compensation for the loss of grassland may be required.