QUESTION 81: Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Peasmarsh? If not, which site should be preferred?

Question 24

I agree with the policy approach to a comprehensive development but reserve judgement on the proposed policy wording. It should be noted that the correct and sensible approach does not of itself insure a sensible outcome. For the reasons stated in answers to your questions 82 and 83 some very unwise and ill thought out proposals have resulted. Perhaps the Planners have become carried away by enthusiasm in making recommendations in regards to Peasmarsh and, for example, the inclusion of a derelict orchard (decaying trees) within or attaching to a children's' play area creating a wholly unnecessary hazard.

Question 25
I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.





































































Question 81
Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.
If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.
However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope















Question 82
In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.
In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:
1. Road Access: Access onto the busy A268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this critereon because
(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road
(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.
In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.
As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasrnarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity
Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
(a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of 'no disturbance' is thus denied.
(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such on going disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines. (c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish. (d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.
4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.










Question 83
We regret that we me not able to agree, in their totality, to major changes to the development boundary. The reasons may be implied from our comments on PEA1 and question 82.

Question 24

I agree with the policy approach to a comprehensive development but reserve judgement on the proposed policy wording. It should be noted that the correct and sensible approach does not of itself insure a sensible outcome. For the reasons stated in answers to your questions 82 and 83 some very unwise and ill thought out proposals have resulted. Perhaps the Planners have become carried away by enthusiasm in making recommendations in regards to Peasmarsh and, for example, the inclusion of a derelict orchard (decaying trees) within or attaching to a children's' play area creating a wholly unnecessary hazard.

Question 25
I cannot speak for the wisdom or otherwise of development boundaries in other towns and villages. I am clear that the development boundary for Peasmarsh, already heavily developed, should not be moved. See reasons in answers to Questions 82 and 83.





































































Question 81
Alternative Sites Item 4 (below) would suggest that significant further development within Peasmarsh would be unwise unless and until local employment prospects are increased to cope with the expanded population that this implies. While the present school uptake is slightly below 100% improving performance of the local school, now forecast, taken together with current and proposed development would probably overwhelm this facility again pointing to the conclusion that development elsewhere where the objective criteria set out above can be met.

Further development would appear to conflict with NPPF (National Planning Guidelines) sec 11.13 which requires planers to make fullest possible use of public transport" (of which there is practically none) and to recognise "the intrinsic character and beauty of the countryside". In addition to these points that militate against further development there are some parts of the village where the gas supply is barely above the minimum allowable pressure, the electrical supply has recently required enhancement to maintain an adequate voltage, the telephone system has been causing ongoing problems and the broad-band speeds in some areas are disappointing.
If the comments above in regard to road access, impact on village amenities, local employment and educational opportunities, sewage and drainage and other limitations of local utilities are ignored by planners or over-ridden then without an in depth study of alternative possibilities within Peasmarsh any suggestion must be tentative.
However, two possible sites had unanimous acceptance but the point must be iterated that all sites within the village are subject to some if not all of the objections listed above. In descending order of preference:

Alternative Site 1
(a) A site behind Jempsons and marked on Planning Map PS6 and PS5 avoid some of the adverse consequences attaching to PEA1.
(1) In particular vehicular access into a slightly widened Tanhouse Lane and just above the existing roundabout meets the requirement of easy and safe access to the A268.
(2) Although this land is outside the present planning envelope (as is PEA1 proposal) it impacts adversely on very few houses
(3) It is thought that there would be no surface water drainage problem associated with this site

Alternative Site 2
Shown on the Planning Map as PS3
Further development of Tanyard Field i.e. behind the recent development of five houses.
(1) Good road access could be made into the bottom of Church Lane
(2) This site has already been partly developed along the road and falls within the planning envelope















Question 82
In regard to your question PEA1 my neighbours and I have discussed the proposed allocation. Our approach has been conditioned by a clear recognition of the need for some development and in particular that for affordable housing.
In order to approach this matter objectively we have come to the conclusion that any proposed site should meet a number of criteria or at least so far as is possible, and that these criteria should apply (a) to that site now proposed or (b) to any alternative site or sites whether or not within the village. Regrettably the proposed site fails to meet most of the criteria and although it might look a neat extension on a planner's map it is an almost perverse choice when looked at with local knowledge. Accordingly we do not agree with proposal PEA1 (Question 82) and the reasons are stated below.

The criteria for development:
1. Road Access: Access onto the busy A268, particularly from a development as large as 45 houses, should have a clear sight line in both directions. The destruction of Pippins to make way for an entry point does not meet this critereon because
(a) traffic approaching from the North West i.e. over Cock Hill: Does not have a sufficient line of sight because of the brow of the hill and the road curvature. In practice this line of sight is reduced below the theoretical measurement because drivers have to be aware of traffic accessing the road from Old House and Forstal's Farm Lane from the Cock Inn (often with caravans) and also from the individual housing. At certain times this traffic can be temporarily blinded when coming out of the shade over the brow of the hill into bright sunlight straight down the road
(b) traffic approaching from the South East is largely unsighted by the curvature of the road especially as is likely to be the case at peak times, when traffic needs to keep well away from the crown of the road because of oncoming wide loads. Again sighting the access point in practice is less than the theoretical line of sight because of the need to observe traffic accessing the road from both sides particularly Malthouse Lane on the driver's right and Griffin Lane or the left. Once again this proposal creates a traffic hazard even without the additional hazard of sight impairment resulting from parked vehicles.
In short the proposal is likely to create a traffic hazard even for vehicles adhering to the speed limits. While it could be possible to re-engineer this part of the roadway e.g. by traffic calming measures & a roundabout this would be an expensive proposition and would inevitably impede the traffic flow on the A268.

2. Drainage There are two considerations pertaining to the proposed site in regards to drainage namely (a) Surface water drainage and (b) foul water drainage (sewage).

(a) Surface Water. The proposal recognises the possible need for SuDS (which has been interpreted to mean Subterranean Drainage Scheme). In fact this whole area is very poorly drained, so much so that with a further 1.5 ha effectively covered with buildings and hard surfaced road the run-off could not be contained without a massive and therefore expensive drainage programme. If further consideration to this site is even to be entertained this installation should be a condition precedent which must be built, tried and tested before any planning permission be granted. Failure to implement proper drainage before housing development is likely to result in the sort of flooding experienced in the Mallards Estate (Farley's Way) despite promises made by planners and developers.
As things now stand any heavy rain leads to flooding to the South East to an unacceptable degree.

(b) Sewage. We understand that Rother Council made an undertaking that no significant further development should be undertaken unless and until there was an increased diameter sewage pipe connected to the Iden Sewage Works. Even making allowance for greater efficiency in water usage (fitting of meters, and more efficient machinery) the sheer size of the proposed development is most likely to overwhelm the present infrastructure. The development is approximately 8% of the total housing stock of Peasrnarsh and a much higher percentage of that connected to the sewage system because many of the outlying houses are not on main drainage and have individual sceptic tanks. This increased sewage capacity must be installed before further development, other than small one off developments are to be considered.

3.Impact on Amenity
Developments should impact (adversely) as little as possible on the existing amenities. This proposal impacts adversely on a significant number of dwellings as follows:
(a) The proposal is outside the planning boundaries pertaining when people purchased houses adjoining. The reasonable expectation of 'no disturbance' is thus denied.
(b) The houses along Griffin Lane enjoy by virtue of the intrinsic nature of the topography, great tranquillity (so great that BBC have broadcast programmes that needed total quiet from the garden of Old Redford). The topography would likely work in reverse if the development took place as projected and the houses would be greatly affected by noise. This contention is supported by those rare, and thus acceptable, occasions when the Cock Inn have fireworks or a loud band. Such on going disturbance would be contrary to Government Planning Guidelines. (c) This disturbance would be exacerbated by the proposal in siting a common walkway at the end of the gardens of those houses along Griffin Lane, which would be both noisy and on the experience of those houses abutting the Main Street a dumping ground for undesirable rubbish. (d) the amenity expected within a village and that pertaining to a town or suburbia are quite different. Peasmarsh housing stock has already been expanded by some 70% since the war (against a population increase shown in the nearest relevant census of only 30%). The status of Peasmarsh as a quiet rural village is already threatened by the existing volume of expansion and the consequence of further expansion is to be avoided if possible.
4. Public Transport and Employment Clearly public transport and employment are separate subjects but they are taken together because each impacts heavily upon the other. The public transport in Peasmarsh is at that critically low point where to maintain even the semblance of an acceptable level of service it has had to be subsidised by the Parish Council. It is not yet known whether this will be successful. RDC introductory note that says "Peasmarsh (enjoys) a good range of services" is incorrect. Employment opportunities within the village or so nearby that public transport is not required are few. A development of 45 houses with some 40% 'affordable' houses (18) suggests that the householders may have the need of a good public transport system to gain and keep employment (or alternatively there would be significant traffic volume exiting a major development at the rush hours to get to work or children to school- see section 1 above). The conclusion from this is that such development that goes ahead should be within reach of a satisfactory transport system or employment opportunities which Peasmarsh does not offer.










Question 83
We regret that we me not able to agree, in their totality, to major changes to the development boundary. The reasons may be implied from our comments on PEA1 and question 82.

Objection to proposed site allocation PS24 in Peasamrsh

Apart from why are Rother proposing an extra 50 houses in Peasmarsh when the infustructure in Peasmarsh is so poor; 2 hourly bus service during the day, no doctors surgery, primary school full and where are the jobs? To name but a few problems.

I object to the to the proposed site PS24 because this site was previously rejected and the reasons have not changed. In addition a single large site would be most detrimental to the present character of the village. The site entrance remains too narrow, barely 10 metres wide, one house stands across the whole site at present, the garden behind is the same width before it narrows to under 6 metres. This bottleneck is the access to the 3 acres for the building land behind Pippins, to build 45 houses. How do the planners see this working? How will there be access for service vehicles like dustman, fire engines to flow in and out? How will the building contractors get access to the site? This is the only access to the site. Where will the footpaths be sited? But my main concern / worry is the access to the proposed houses, after they are built, from Main Street. The narrow site entrance from the south, is on a bend in the road and on a hill, from the north the site line in a brow of a hill with no sight of vehicles coming up the hill from that direction. Do ESCC really agree to this as ok? I feel strongly this area is an accident waiting to happen. We know from our village 'speed watch' that cars regularly exceed the speed limit here. This is unacceptable to the to the occupiers either side of Pippins. Plus this site is badly drained which is a major concern for the lower lying houses to the eastern side of the site. They already face flooding from the run off from site ponds and stream and this would be further exuberated by development here. Such damage is considered unacceptable within this proposal.

The other three suggested sites, PS5 and PS6 off Tanhouse Lane and PS7, do not have poor vehicle access and RDC, in an email dated 2014 from Richard Wilson, stating these sites as being better sites!

So why is Pippins being considered now? I can only think it is because the owners have agreed to sell the land and this makes RDC's life easier; a sad day when planners just take an easy option rather than what is best for the village.

Please read this eamil in conjunction with attached document.


Site Allocations questions
Question 81 - Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Peasmarsh? If not, which site should be preferred?
Do not agree - We do not believe that PS24 (the preferred site) is suitable and that three sites PS5 Land north east of Tanhouse or PS6 Land adjacent to Superstore and PS7s Land south of Oaklands Main Street would be more suitable as either a combination of sites (to achieve the desired number of dwellings) or as a single site
Question 82 - Do you agree with the requirements of Policy PEA1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
I) Statement - Some 45 dwellings-are provided as shown on the Policies Map, of which 40% are affordable
Amend to read - Some 45 dwellings-are provided as shown on the Policies Map, of which a minimum of 60% are affordable.
Reason for amendment - To provide more affordable housing for those people unable to currently purchase the high priced local housing in Peasmarsh . The stated figure of 40% is insufficient if this is in any way meant to be meaningful goal.
II) Statement - vehicle access is to Main Street to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority
Amend to read - Vehicle access to Main Street to the satisfaction of an independent authority not associated with either RDC or ESCC
Reason for amendment - To guarantee the impartiality of the decision as to the suitability of this access.
III) Statement - additional pedestrian/cycle access:
(a) To the north-east of the site, connecting down the length of the eastern boundary via a green corridor
(b) Southward connecting to the footpath network
Amend to read - (a) To the north-east of the site, connecting down the length of the eastern boundary a permeable pavement as part of the green corridor to facilitate pedestrian access from the north east of the site
Reason for amendment - A green corridor during the winter months and periods of sustained wet weather will become impractical during these periods due to mud, the limited amount of daylight hours and a general lack of street lighting in Peasmarsh
No amendments to (b)
IV) Statement - Provision of a children's play area, which should be subject to passive surveillance from residential frontages
No amendments
V) Statement - Provision of open space to the south of the site, incorporating the traditional orchard within it, with funding arrangements for on-going management to maintain as open space and biodiversity interest
Amend to read - Provision of open space to the south of the site, incorporating the traditional orchard within it, with funding arrangements for on-going management from either central government, ESCC or RDC to maintain as open space and biodiversity interest
Reason for amendment - To ensure that residents of Peasmarsh are protected from having to pay for this ongoing maintenance bill via the parish precept settlement
VI) Statement -Retention of other existing ecological and High Weald AONB character features so far as reasonably practicable, including historic field boundaries, boundary hedgerows, existing trees and existing pond
Amend to read - Retention of other existing ecological and High Weald AONB character features, including historic field boundaries, boundary hedgerows, existing trees and existing pond
Reason for amendment - So far as reasonably practicable is very loose wording and is dependent upon the interpretation of what practicable would mean
VII) Statement - Maintenance and reinforcement existing landscaped boundaries around the site and creation of new ones on exposed western edges
Amend to read - Maintenance and reinforcement existing landscaped boundaries around the site and creation of new ones on exposed western edges by either central government, ESCC or RDC
Reason for amendment - To ensure that residents of Peasmarsh are protected from having to pay for this ongoing maintenance bill via the parish precept settlement
Question 83 - Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?
15.83. It is proposed to amend the development boundary as set out on Figure 109 below.
15.84. The proposed amendment to the development boundary will reflect the new allocation in the village
Do not agree - We believe that the three sites as specified in the response to question 81 above should be the proposed development boundary and that figure 109 should be amended accordingly to reflect these sites
Preferred site PS24 - Reasons for objection
a) Access to the A268 via Pippins is extremely problematic in terms of driver sight line when exiting the proposed site due to the proximity of the hill to the west between Tanhouse Lane and The Cock Inn as this stretch of the A268 is in a 40mph limit (which is often being exceeded by motorists) and approaching vehicles cannot be seen until they are passing The Cock Inn. To the east side there is a blind bend from The Old Post Office to approximately Crookwell and although this is a 30mph limit motorist quite often exceed it - as can be confirmed by the local Speedwatch group.
b) Entry to the site is by the Highways Authority own admission only achievable in principle and requires presumably the demolition of a perfectly habitable property 'Pippins' to achieve access to the site and even then a priority system will be required at the rear end
c) It is unclear from the proposal as to whether or not there is provision for footpath(s) on this entry / exit road
d) The creation of this access will undoubtedly have a severe impact on the occupiers of the properties that will be either side of this road who will have to endure the comings and goings of vehicles and the like to the 45 dwellings day and night.
e) As this proposal relies very much on the owners of Pippins being prepared to sell their property to any potential developer, which presumably they have said they will, what provision has been made should they change their mind or cannot agree a sale price with the developer?
f) The two options to connect the footpath to the south and west are not specified other that they require third party land so it is not possible to judge what the implications of this may be
g) Though to a lesser extent properties abounding the proposed site will also be greatly impacted by this proposed development
h) Whilst the provision of a residential children's play area is to be applauded there already exists adequate facilities at The Maltings which incorporates a children's play park, a recreation ground and a skate park and the hope would be that the residents of the new site would wish to avail themselves of these facilities and thus integrate themselves into the wider community
i) Preferred site is badly drained. Drainage problems cause the garden of the lowest level property in this vicinity to flood on a regular basis and this will only be exacerbated by this development.


Preferred sites - Reasons for choosing

The Parish Council has in its possession an email from Richard Wilson at RDC, dated 2014, in which he states "that the only feasible sites for development in Peasmarsh are near to Jempsons Supermarket".

PS5
Whilst accepting that the site would have a negative impact on ANOB it would again appear that this site is being rejected simply because of the view but that in all other aspects would seem more preferable to PS24 as it meets much of the criteria and impacts on very few existing properties.
Safer access to the A268 from the already established access road to Jempsons Supermarket.
Access could be easily obtained from the existing roundabout adjacent to Jempsons giving easy access to site.
Much closer to amenities ie Supermarket, Post Office, Pharmacy etc.
PS6
As stated in PS5 this too appears to be a site rejected purely on the grounds above despite being very accessible and fulfilling much of the criteria used to justify PS24 and again this impacts very few properties.
Links onto PS5 with the same benefits of access.
PS7s
Links onto PS6 with the same benefits of access as PS5.
Could be developed at a later stage as opposed to one large development.
Less impact on existing properties.

General observations on Peasmarsh infrastructure
a) Drainage - over the years there have been a number of issues regarding the drainage and in particular the foul water with the Iden treatment works running near to its maximum capacity.
b) With the re-development of The Maltings complex adding ten extra dwellings and the addition of another 45 dwellings this will increase the population of the village by around 120 (2.3 people per household 2011 census) an approximate 10% increase yet there is no provision in the document for any of the following
1) Doctors surgery residents at present have to go to either The Rye Medical Centre of The Northiam Surgery both of which will be under increased pressure by developments within the surrounding villages and may have to start limiting their patients to those within their catchment area
2) Dentist - again there is no provision for this
3) Bus service - This has effectively been cut from an hourly service to a two hourly service and looks set to be reduce even further due to budgetary constraints at ESCC
4) The local primary school is nearing capacity and will almost certainly struggle to accommodate an influx of children particularly as it becomes more successful and is obliged to take children whose parents do not live in the village thus forcing village children to be located further afield.

We acknowledge that there is a need for more affordable housing and this is not a case of 'NIMBY' ism but simply that the proposed site, PS24, is ill conceived and fraught with potential problems. However, notwithstanding the points made regarding infrastructure we would urge you to reconsider the proposed site and give careful consideration to the alternative sites we have suggested.