QUESTION 67: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Catsfield? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22048
Received: 22/12/2016
Respondent: Mrs Victoria Robertson
I was particularly concerned that Catsfield has a disproportionate number of proposed houses to be built. If you build the number in this village you will have increased its population by a quarter.
This village will not be able to cope with such an increased population and retain its character. If you increase our numbers so radically you will damage this village and the thing that makes it special.
Our village seems to have been allocated more than is appropriate to a village of this size.
Your strategy will overload us and have a lasting and damaging effect.
I have recently read your consultation document for proposed sites for house building in Rother.
I was particularly concerned that Catsfield have a disproportionate number of proposed houses to be built. If you build the proposed number of houses in this small village you will have increased its population by almost a quarter if only two people move into each new built house.
This village will not be able to cope with such a sudden and increased population and retain its existing character. This village has an outstanding sense of community and this will be endangered by this sudden increase in numbers. If you increase our numbers so radically you will damage this village and the very thing that makes it so special.
I am aware you have no choice under the new climate but to build houses but surely we should have a number we can cope with and more in keeping with the size of the existing village. Our village seems to have been allocated more than is appropriate to a village of this size and more than other villages in Rother.
Your strategy will over load us and have a lasting and damaging effect on this village.
I would also draw your attention to the fact this area esp behind the White Heart is often under water in the winter and acts as a flood plain for the village.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22078
Received: 17/01/2017
Respondent: High Weald AONB Unit
No objection to the proposed allocation of sites CA12 and CA6 in Catsfield . According to the Historic Landscape Characterisation site CA12 is late 19th century regular piecemeal enclosure with historic field boundaries that should be protected.
No objection to the proposed allocation of sites CA12 and CA6 in Catsfield . According to the Historic Landscape Characterisation site CA12 is late 19th century regular piecemeal enclosure with historic field boundaries that should be protected.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22539
Received: 19/02/2017
Respondent: Jeremy Attewell
No suitable sites. Catsfield too small
No school space.
sewage systems will be pushed beyond limit.
displaced water puts village in flood risk.
main road is too dangerous for extra traffic/road
displaced local wildlife/irreparable damage to local ecosystem.
devalued local housing.
new build will be out of keeping
I do not agree with any of the sites. Catsfield is too small to cope with this level of development and none of the areas are suitable. No space at the school. sewage systems will be pushed to the maximum. The main road is too busy and dangerous without adding another road onto it, this will cause chaos. Local wildlife will be displaced from only scrubland around this area and will damage local ecosystem. Flooding will be a major concern as all areas flood already, but ate maintained at this moment due to soak away. New housing will displace all this water into a system that will not cope. Surrounding housing will be devalued.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22596
Received: 19/02/2017
Respondent: Sara Andrew
I agree with the site in Skinners Lane. I do not agree with the site to the rear of the White Hart pub wholly because the plan for 35 houses is ludicrous. If the plan was for 10 houses then I would agree with this site for development.
35 houses is an excessive amount for a small village and this amount of houses should be divided in other plots.
I agree with the site in Skinners Lane. I do not agree with the site to the rear of the White Hart pub wholly because the plan for 35 houses is ludicrous. If the plan was for 10 houses then I would agree with this site for development.
35 houses is an excessive amount for a small village and this amount of houses should be divided in other plots.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22608
Received: 19/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Paul Willis
CA12 is within the AONB area of the village and therefore other sites which are not should be preferred. The site floods during the winter. It places families on the opposing side of the main road to the school. Moving the crossing north will place it in a zone where it is unlikely to be used by children to cross.
Preferred sites are CA4, CA8 and CA11 which place housing nearer to the school. CA3 would have least impact on current residents and be beyond the flood zones placing families next to the local amenity area already in place.
CA12 is within the AONB area of the village and therefore other sites which are not should be preferred. The site floods during the winter. It places families on the opposing side of the main road to the school. Moving the crossing north will place it in a zone where it is unlikely to be used by children to cross.
Preferred sites are CA4, CA8 and CA11 which place housing nearer to the school. CA3 would have least impact on current residents and be beyond the flood zones placing families next to the local amenity area already in place.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22643
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: mr alan burden
Dangerous for villagers due to 30mph speed limit that gets ignored. No pavements.
Catsfield is a small drive-through village on the way to Hastings or Battle. It has a 30mph speed limit running through the village which nobody seems to adhere too. The pavements are very narrow meaning you have to walk in single file which is extremely dangerous when out walking with children and dogs. Due to the road being a through-road people DONT park on the road in fear of getting their cars damaged or holding up the traffic so more than often than not park with two wheels on the pavement making it even more hazardous for pedestrians. There was a court case a year ago due to a car getting damaged by a disability scooter whilst having two wheels on the pavement. Adding 35 houses to the the middle of a small village will only make the situation worse and far more dangerous for its inhabitants. An accident waiting to happen.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22715
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Philip Moore
Strongly opposed to the moving of the pedestrian crossing because of safety. If it is not in an appropriate place for the amenities it will not be used as much. It is generally less safe further up the hill to the North.
I am opposed to the proposed plans to build at the rear of the pub in Catsfield. I have personal reasons in that the building work will disrupt my life, future tenancies also doing the same and will prompt me to move away. This much is obvious and of course I understand that no one wants new building in their back yard. Beyond that, I genuinely feel that to move the pedestrian crossing further North is a bad that that will some day result in a death. Even now it is far enough away from the shop to encourage anyone leaving it for Church Lane to attempt to cross before it. I know because I do. Children will do it for sure and there will be accidents. Also, cars are moving faster from hill the further up you go. Where it is now there is time for good visibility and speed.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22725
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Mr Scott Lavocah
I don't agree with the number of houses being proposed at site CA12 and would rather see this allocation split around the triangle or roads around the centre of the village (The Green, Church Lane and Church Road). This could easily be done at sites CA4, CA8 and/or CA11 , therefore spreading this dense allocation out.
Question 67 - I don't agree with the number of houses being proposed at site CA12 and would rather see this allocation split around the triangle or roads around the centre of the village (The Green, Church Lane and Church Road). This could easily be done at sites CA4, CA8 and/or CA11 , therefore spreading this dense allocation out.
Question 68 - as above with regard to site CA12.
Question 70 - Yes I agree with the development boundary modifications but with CA12 split as above.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 22753
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Miss Elizabeth Parker
The proposed allocation does not accord with the Rural Settlements Study (2008) and Market Towns and Villages Landscape Assessment (2009) which identified the potential to locate up to 40 dwellings within the area of the CAT 3 zone (lands west of the main road B2204 [CA3/CA5/CA6/CA12 and adjoining land]) in association with landscape structure restoration and enhancement.
The proposed allocation does not accord with the Rural Settlements Study (2008)
and Market Towns and Villages Landscape Assessment (2009) which identified
the potential to locate up to 40 dwellings within the area of the CAT 3 zone
(lands west of the main road B2204 [CA3/CA5/CA6/CA12 and adjoining land])
in association with landscape structure restoration and enhancement.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23281
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council
Agree: in the absence of any other sites the Parish Council consider the 'preferred' sites acceptable
Q.6 DISAGREE IN PART: THE 18 MONTH MARKETING CAMPAIGN IS TOO LONG AND SITES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL MERITS.
Q.7 DISAGREE IN PART: THE POLICY IS DISCRIMINATORY AGAINST EQUESTRIAN ACTIVITIES IN RURAL AREAS AND SHOULD NOT GO TOWARDS PREVENTING PEOPLE FROM OWNING HORSES.
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT ROTHER DC HAS NOT UNDERTAKEN A COMPREHENSIVE SURVEY OF 'BRIDLEWAYS' IN THE ROTHER AREA, AS CATSFIELD FOR ONE HAS FEW BRIDLEWAYS.
PROPOSED SITES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED ON THEIR INDIVIDUAL MERITS.
Q.67 AGREE: IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER SITES PARISH COUNCIL CONSIDER THE 'PREFERRED' SITES ACCEPTABLE
Q.68 DISAGREE IN PART: THE DENSITY OF HOUSING FOR THIS SITE IS TOO HIGH. PARISH COUNCIL IS CONCERNED WITH THE IMPACT OF THE ADDITIONAL VOLUME OF CARS AND PROVISION OF CAR PARKING SPACES. THE VILLAGE LACKS THE INFRASTRUCTURE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS LEVEL OF EXTRA HOUSING I.E. THE PRIMARY SCHOOL IS OVERSUBSCRIBED. ACCESS TO THE SITE IS NOT GOOD AND ON A ROAD (THE GREEN) WHICH HAS EXISTING PROBLEMS WITH SPEEDING AND DANGEROUS OVERTAKING. LIGHTING NEEDS TO BE TAKEN INTO CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO PREVENT URBANISATION OF THE VILLAGE.
AFFORDABLE HOUSING: PRIORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO VILLAGE RESIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES.
Q.69 THOUGH PLANNING PERMISSION HAS BEEN GRANTED, PRIORITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO VILLAGE RESIDENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES WHEN CONSIDERING AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
Q.70 AGREE AS PROPOSED.
ROTHER AND HASTINGS PLAYING PITCH STRATEGY
PARISH COUNCIL HAS REVIEWED THE COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN RELATION TO THE CATSFIELD RECREATION GROUND AND HAS THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS:
THE PLAYING FIELD IS SUITABLY ADEQUATE AND WELL MAINTAINED FOR ITS TYPE OF USE - TRADITIONAL VILLAGE SPORTS. PARISH COUNCIL IS VERY DISAPPOINTED THAT THE REPORT HAS BEEN PRODUCED ON A SEVERE LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE USE OF THE PLAYING FIELD. A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY IS SPENT ON MAINTAINING THE GROUND. IT IS NOT TOO LONG AGO A NEW PAVILION WAS BUILT, WHICH HAD TO MEET FOOTBALL LEAGUE STANDARDS.
THE PLAY AREA HAS ALSO ONLY RECENTLY BEEN COMPLETELY REPLACED WITH NEW EQUIPMENT. THE FACT THAT THE PHOTOGRAPH BEING USED TO PROMOTE THIS POLICY IS OF THE CATSFIELD PLAYING FIELD AND PAVILION MUST GIVE SOME CREDIBILITY TO THE FACILITIES. FOR A SMALL SERVICE VILLAGE CATSFIELD HAS GOOD RECREATIONAL / SPORTS FACILITIES. THE PLAYING FIELD HAS RESTRICTIONS IN THAT IT IS ALSO BISECTED BY A PUBLIC FOOTPATH. ROTHER DC DO NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT THE CATSFIELD RECREATION
GROUND IS NOT JUST A PLAYING / SPORTS FIELD - IT IS A RECREATION GROUND OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AS WELL.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23576
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Landscape
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS
Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.
Landscape
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS
Yes to all questions - Agree and support all of the village boundary and other policies.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23651
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Catsfield
Both sites will require archaeological assessment to clarify risk
-AMBER
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
Catsfield
Both sites will require archaeological assessment to clarify risk
-AMBER