There does not appear to be specific reference to heat pumps in the document. Use of heat pumps in new, more compact developments covered in LW1 must consider both noise and visual impact.

The snappy punchline of 'Green to the core' and 'Live well locally' is a bold attempt to show a commitment to protecting rural communities and local ecology but your HELAA land allocation of CAT0001 and potential site CAT0016 in Catsfield fly in the face of these claims/promises. The proposal of 60 new houses (some proposing to be built on protected AONB land) in this small rural village (doubling the size of the main village), is absolutely shocking and I object strongly to these sites being included for allocation in this plan. These proposals would not only destroy ancient woodland, biodiversity and protected wildlife habitats, they would also severely impact the lives of local residents with increased pollution and a serious decline in the already insufficient utilties and local infrastructure.

Firstly, my congratulations on the clarity and thoroughness of the planning process and the presentation at the exhibition(s).

While I appreciate that you are still at the general planning stages, I believe it is important to include consideration of the following:

1) Infrastructure: (Completion of the link between Queensway and the A21 in St Leonards is essential to support the attraction of potential businesses to the proposed industrial units). The utilities seem to struggle to support the with existing demand e.g. water storage and supply, mobile signal coverage, EV charging etc. Can these be fixed before adding to the burden?

2) Roads: Experience from when the link road was under construction shows that alternative routes receive a punishing load from diverted traffic for which, judging by the damage caused, they were not constructed. No attempt has been made to repair the damage which ought to be part of the overall planning (e.g. Woodsgate Park while the Sidley bridge was rebuilt). Such damage mitigates against the plans for greater use of bicycle transport for instance.

3) Housing density: I understand that the underprovision of parking spaces is deliberate to try to force people to use public transport instead. This does, however, lead to increased use/need to park cars on the roads and pavements hindering pedestrians and those with disabilities, and adding to the sense of claustrophobia caused by the higher density housing - hardly contributing to well-being.

4) Types of accommodation: It is to be hoped that the eventual granting of planning permissions will include the need to include climate friendly elements such as photo-electric roofing on all new builds, subterranean tanks for brown water storage to alleviate rainwater runoff and pressure on the pumped mains water.

5) Need for affordable housing: What is the cause of the pressure? Can we ensure that any such dwellings are used for local people and not swallowed up by private landlords, 2nd home owners or more distant local authorities to fulfil their own housing shortfalls?

6) Location of proposed schools and medical units: Again, this probably belongs further down the line of the planning permissions but, for the former, the safe delivery and collection of students needs to be built into the infrastructure. For the latter, the demographics need to be taken into account. With a significantly high proportion of elderly residents, access to any medical units needs to be on the level, i.e. without steep ramps or steps to negotiate. The Cooden Sea Road surgery fails on both these aspects and parking for the disabled or mobility impaired is also notable by its absence - most parking spaces are taken up by long stay blockers (staff? local shop workers? residents?).

Why does the plan propose housing density levels not even endured in the most deprived areas of London?

While I agree that a gentle increase in density spread across the area can be useful (i.e. garden infill developments or detached into semi-detached), such a sudden increase in density will cause serious mental health issues, strain on roads, infrastructure and services.

Average DPH (dwellings per hectare):
Inner London 46.7
Outer London 16.3
London 22.5
England 1.8
(source: data.london.gov.uk)

Please see attached submitted document for full comments.