Policy CAT1: Land west of the B2204, Catsfield

I presume the recent letter (your ref. 6.3.11/Regulation 19/DaSA) refers to the proposed building behind the Pub in Catsfield.

I wrote sometime ago my thoughts on why this should not happen. Nothing has changed.

The main difficulty is the presence of a well defined winterbourne flowing across the middle of the field during times of prolonged precipitation. In other words, it is a floodplain.

What is the point of designating the area as an AONB, and then building on it?

The village is not 'Tooled-up' for an influx of population.

I am told the village school is full and cannot accept more pupils.

The potential access road would put more traffic onto an already busy, fast flowing road.

The field is home to bullfinches, nuthatches. blackcaps and occasionally nightingales

DaSA Local Plan - Public Representation period
We have noted with interest, in particular the sites promoted as acceptable for the village of Catsfield, and the reasons for promoting two of the sites, one of which has already been granted Planning Permission. This in itself appears to be contrary to the policy of public consultation.

The other site which has been called CA12 appears to have been adopted, subject to consultation, purely on the premise that it is near to the shop and public house. This site would however fail many other Policy items from the Core Strategy, not least the fact that it is almost totally within the AONB. Within the text it is admitted that the B2204 has a poor accident record and yet seeks to promote 35 houses with 40% affordable, presumably for young families, on the opposite side of the dangerous road to the school, church and main bulk of housing in the Village. The report also highlights that the Public House is Grade 2 listed structure and to surround this with modern housing and a 'village green' area will not be in keeping with the setting of the listed building.

We would suggest that site CA8 is far more appropriate to the proposed development and could potentially offer the Village far more in terms of improvements to facilities available and without encroaching the AONB. The assessment dismissed this area, we suspect, due to the initial statement that it was considered too large an area. Contrary to that we believe that a larger area means that the development is more in keeping with the Village style and not formed as an urban housing estate. With 40% affordable housing it is likely that a good number of young families will be housed and they will require schooling near to them.

Our plan shows that the position of the site will allow for several communal project areas such as a doctors surgery or similar, car park, play areas and the 'village green'. There will also be space for environmental issues such as ponds and wetland areas. It is also hoped that access points to the school avoiding the lane would be possible and access through existing pathways to village areas and shops.

It cannot be stressed enough how dangerous the B2204 is that splits the Village and this is a major factor in the recommendation that the preferred site option is changed.

It has been cited that option C8 is contrary to Policies OSS1, OSS3, OSS4, OSS5, RA1, EN 1, and EN7.

The proposed site C8 cannot be contrary to Policy OSS1 until such time as another site is confirmed and at this stage it is part of consultation and there is an allocation for Catsfield of 47 dwellings in the Core strategy. The proposed site C8 is cannot be contrary to Policy OSS3 as there is a requirement to provide dwellings including affordables within the Core Strategy and this site would provide access to as well as the option for additional communal facilities and to existing services.

The proposed site C8 cannot contravene Policy OSS4 as the design and layout have not yet been designed or considered although it has considered the provision of communal and other facilities that will improve accessibility throughout the Village.

We could not access a policy OSS5 and therefore cannot comment on that.

The proposed site C8 complies with the requirements of RA1 in all respects and will be provided with forms of Green energy to enable compliance with current Building Regulation Standards. The use of Air Source pumps. Photovoltaic cells etc. will be considered.

The proposed site C8 does not contravene the requirements of EN1, unlike the preferred site which is
predominantly in the AONB and is in the environs of a Grade 2 listed building.

The proposed site C8 is not in an area considered by the Environment Agency as at risk of flooding as can be seen from the attached comments and plans. This therefore means it does not contravene the Policy E7 as stated in the brief.

Contrary to this we believe that the preferred site C12, referred in later documentation as Policy CAT1 is in contravention of the Policies stated, OSS1, OSS3, OSS4, RA1 and EN1 together with compromising the AONB and is against parts of the NPPF.

We would seek your urgent review of the preferences for site development in Catsfield, most particularly, because we are concerned that the position of the development will lead to more serious incidents and accidents on the B2204, less provision of facilities for the Village to encourage retention of existing services and serious encroachment into the AONB and the setting of a listed building.

We look forward to receiving your comments in relation to the above observations.


Environment Agency
Flood map for planning

Your reference: catsfield
Location (easting/northing) 572413/113592

Created 20 Nov 201 B 2:29

Your selected location is in flood zone 1, an area with a low probability of flooding.

This means:
. you don't need to do a flood risk assessment if your development is smaller than 1 hectare and not affected by other sources of flooding

. you may need to do a flood risk assessment if your development is larger than 1 hectare or affected by other sources of flooding or in an area with critical drainage problems

Notes

The flood map for planning shows river and sea flooding data only. It doesn't include other sources
of flooding. It is for use in development planning and flood risk assessments.

This information relates to the selected location and is not specific to any property within it. The
map is updated regularly and is correct at the time of printing.

The Open Government Licence sets out the terms and conditions for using government data.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov. uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

(map provided which can be viewed here: www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31090)


Environment Agency
Flood map for planning

Your reference: catsfield

Location (easting/northing): 572294/113669

Created 20 Nov 2018 2:27

Your selected location is in flood zone 1, an area with a low probability of flooding.

This means:

. you don't need to do a flood risk assessment if your development is smaller than 1 hectare and not affected by other sources of flooding

. you may need to do a flood risk assessment if your development is larger than 1 hectare or affected by other sources of flooding or in an area with critical drainage problems

Notes

The flood map for planning shows river and sea flooding data only. It doesn't include other sources
of flooding. It is for use in development planning and flood risk assessments.
This information relates to the selected location and is not specific to any property within it. The
map is updated regularly and is correct at the time of printing.

The Open Government Licence sets out the terms and conditions for using government data.
https://www.nationalarchives.gov. uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/

(map provided which can be viewed here: www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31091)

Map of Catsfield Development provided, can be viewed here: www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=31092

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

We note that for four of the five allocations that are within the PLHCA the DaSA state that proposals will be permitted where "at least two forms of appropriate 'Sustainable Drainage' are incorporated in accordance with Policy DEN5 'Sustainable Drainage'". For one of the five allocations (CAT1) there is no mention in the DaSA of the PLHCA or sustainable drainage. For consistency the reference to sustainable drainage should be incorporated within Policy CAT1 also.

The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB) welcomes the opportunity to comment on Rother District Council's Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan.

The two sites allocations closest to Pevensey Levels (BEX9 and BEX10) state that proposals will be permitted where "an Appropriate Assessment (AA) under the Habitats Regulations demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels Special Area of Conservation/RAMSAR site". For consistency and protection of the integrity of the Pevensey Levels, the requirement to carry out an AA, that demonstrates beyond reasonable scientific doubt that these can be delivered on the site without harming the integrity of the Pevensey Levels should be applied to the other three site allocations including; Policies BEX6, BEX7 and CAT1.