QUESTION 99: Do you agree with the recommendation to remove the development boundary at Pett Level? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to this settlement?
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23682
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Pett Level
Yes
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
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Pett Level
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23767
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Ecology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Yes
Ecology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Representation ID: 23940
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Flood Risk Management
Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317
We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.
Flood Risk Management
Section 16 Other Villages with Development Boundaries in the 2006 Local Plan p317
We support the review of development boundaries in light of environmental constraints and risks and their removal where it is considered appropriate on sustainability grounds.