AM42

Showing comments and forms 1 to 1 of 1

Object

Schedule of Additional Modifications

Representation ID: 24653

Received: 10/09/2019

Respondent: SeaChange Sussex

Representation:

While we welcome the inclusion of NBAR within the proposed DaSA the highway alignment is inconsistent with the alignment shown within PMM1. The roads alignment should be marked accurately on proposed policy plans.

The road shown on this plan is also inaccurate as it omits the connections to Watermill Lane northbound for cars and southbound from the Pegasus crossing for equestrian and pedestrian traffic. The inclusion of these features will necessitate narrowing the access shown for the proposed traveller pitches, which as advised previously by the engineers responsible for the construction of the North Bexhill Access Road, we consider unsuitable. We would suggest that a suitable location with access is selected as this site will not be delivered as it is not deliverable without the co-operation of adjoining land owners, we have explored this option and been unable to identify a willing adjoining land owner on a procedural matter we would suggest that changes to the policy map of this nature should require consultation with the inspector.

Full text:

While we welcome the inclusion of NBAR within the proposed DaSA the highway alignment is inconsistent with the alignment shown within PMM1. The roads alignment should be marked accurately on proposed policy plans.

The road shown on this plan is also inaccurate as it omits the connections to Watermill Lane northbound for cars and southbound from the Pegasus crossing for equestrian and pedestrian traffic. The inclusion of these features will necessitate narrowing the access shown for the proposed traveller pitches, which as advised previously by the engineers responsible for the construction of the North Bexhill Access Road, we consider unsuitable. We would suggest that a suitable location with access is selected as this site will not be delivered as it is not deliverable without the co-operation of adjoining land owners, we have explored this option and been unable to identify a willing adjoining land owner on a procedural matter we would suggest that changes to the policy map of this nature should require consultation with the inspector.