11.178
Object
Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan
Representation ID: 24137
Received: 06/12/2018
Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council
Legally compliant? Yes
Sound? No
Duty to co-operate? Yes
East Sussex County Council "in principle" view that "the proposed access point can achieve the necessary visibility and that an acceptable layout on the access road can be achieved, with a footway" shows either a breath-taking complacency or naivety by RDC given that not a shred of evidence is offered by ESCC to support their assertion.
The volume of traffic on the A268 is in excess of 80,000 vehicles per month (VAS data at eastern end of village and ESCC survey April 2013 and March 2015).
RDC acceptance that a priority system is needed begs the question why this is RDC's preferred site given the access difficulties, the demolition of a house and volume of traffic through the village whilst rejecting other, more accessible, sites that have been suggested.
The fact that RDC have felt it necessary to stipulate that a Road Traffic Audit should take place at the planning stage and not before is an indication of their concern regarding the sites unsuitability and which it refuses to acknowledge.
Is this a cynical attempt to ensure legitimate objections are ignored at the planning stage arguing no concerns were raised at the outset about the sites suitability thus approving it.
East Sussex County Council "in principle" view that "the proposed access point can achieve the necessary visibility and that an acceptable layout on the access road can be achieved, with a footway" shows either a breath-taking complacency or naivety by RDC given that not a shred of evidence is offered by ESCC to support their assertion.
The volume of traffic on the A268 is in excess of 80,000 vehicles per month (VAS data at eastern end of village and ESCC survey April 2013 and March 2015).
RDC acceptance that a priority system is needed begs the question why this is RDC's preferred site given the access difficulties, the demolition of a house and volume of traffic through the village whilst rejecting other, more accessible, sites that have been suggested.
The fact that RDC have felt it necessary to stipulate that a Road Traffic Audit should take place at the planning stage and not before is an indication of their concern regarding the sites unsuitability and which it refuses to acknowledge.
Is this a cynical attempt to ensure legitimate objections are ignored at the planning stage arguing no concerns were raised at the outset about the sites suitability thus approving it.