QUESTION 70: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Catsfield

Both sites will require archaeological assessment to clarify risk, boundary could then be modified to exclude significant archaeological remains.
-AMBER

Ecology

VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219

Catsfield

Yes