Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25631
Received: 20/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Trevor Gooding
My wife and I are completely against any further development in Playden. We are against any further development on site PLA0008 the road is far to narrow here. Its a single track country lane. In addition we do not wish to see Playden connected to Rye because the Doomsday Village will lose its identity and will just become part of Rye. We are also against PLA0012 and PLA 0013. We understand that comments must be in by the 23rd of July and we have only heard of this today. This is wrong, giving the residents only a few days notice is not right. I think our local MP should know about this quickly. As you know The 'Shell-field' site opposite PLA0008 was roundly rejected by the Housing Minister on two separate occasions. All the same planning points apply just the same for PL0008 as they did for 'Shell-field' .
My wife and I are completely against any further development in Playden. We are against any further development on site PLA0008 the road is far to narrow here. Its a single track country lane. In addition we do not wish to see Playden connected to Rye because the Doomsday Village will lose its identity and will just become part of Rye. We are also against PLA0012 and PLA 0013. We understand that comments must be in by the 23rd of July and we have only heard of this today. This is wrong, giving the residents only a few days notice is not right. I think our local MP should know about this quickly. As you know The 'Shell-field' site opposite PLA0008 was roundly rejected by the Housing Minister on two separate occasions. All the same planning points apply just the same for PL0008 as they did for 'Shell-field' .
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25669
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mrs jo barnes
I do wonder why you write this Local Plan the effort and cost to do this seems pointless when RDC absolutely does not take anything written in this to account for any planning decisions? Blackfriars has been a mess from the outset and there has been a reason why it has been identified for years and not built? It no longer has affordable houses so should be put back to the community to decide if this will add or take away from the community. The second blackfriars site will provide nothing at all for community, wildlife and certainly won't help the environment, trees or social housing and should not even be discussed until first site is resolved. I agree with the sentiment of the Local Plan but how does the community hold RDC to account when they decide to go against what is written in it
I do wonder why you write this Local Plan the effort and cost to do this seems pointless when RDC absolutely does not take anything written in this to account for any planning decisions? Blackfriars has been a mess from the outset and there has been a reason why it has been identified for years and not built? It no longer has affordable houses so should be put back to the community to decide if this will add or take away from the community. The second blackfriars site will provide nothing at all for community, wildlife and certainly won't help the environment, trees or social housing and should not even be discussed until first site is resolved. I agree with the sentiment of the Local Plan but how does the community hold RDC to account when they decide to go against what is written in it
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25707
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Eric Bourne
HELAA Chapter 4 identifies PLA0008 as a potential development site. The site is part of the strategic green gap protecting the historic village of Playden from becoming a suburb of Rye. The suggested 8 house development on the small 1.39 acre site would be an over development, out of keeping with the village character. Access from the A268 is restricted due to the narrowness of New England Lane, an ancient historic feature that should be protected. PLA001, the Shellfield site on the opposite side of the lane has had 2 appeal rejections, and yet the references in this draft plan are glowingly selective in their reference to the reasons. To help resolve the need for housing development locally it is commendable that RDC are exploring all options, but neither of these sites is suitable and development would have an adverse impact on the Domesday Book village of Playden.
HELAA Chapter 4 identifies PLA0008 as a potential development site. The site is part of the strategic green gap protecting the historic village of Playden from becoming a suburb of Rye. The suggested 8 house development on the small 1.39 acre site would be an over development, out of keeping with the village character. Access from the A268 is restricted due to the narrowness of New England Lane, an ancient historic feature that should be protected. PLA001, the Shellfield site on the opposite side of the lane has had 2 appeal rejections, and yet the references in this draft plan are glowingly selective in their reference to the reasons. To help resolve the need for housing development locally it is commendable that RDC are exploring all options, but neither of these sites is suitable and development would have an adverse impact on the Domesday Book village of Playden.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25809
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Robert Bannan
I object to the the proposed three potential housing estate sites in Playden. On the grounds that:
1/ Houghton lane is a quiet rural location which does not have sufficient resources for more people
2/ in the case of PLA0008, RDC is ignoring its own policy on strategic green gaps by suggesting the site has development potential.
3/ For site PL0008 the Council is blatantly ignoring the Planning inspectorate's two appeal rulings regarding development in this part of Playden (Sheffield).
I object to the the proposed three potential housing estate sites in Playden. On the grounds that:
1/ Houghton lane is a quiet rural location which does not have sufficient resources for more people
2/ in the case of PLA0008, RDC is ignoring its own policy on strategic green gaps by suggesting the site has development potential.
3/ For site PL0008 the Council is blatantly ignoring the Planning inspectorate's two appeal rulings regarding development in this part of Playden (Sheffield).
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25955
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Playden Protect
HELAA Chapter 4 identifies PLA0008 as a potential development site.
This is a contradiction given that RDC’s own policy states that these areas should remain as ‘strategic green gaps’.
It would be a crime for these fields to be turned into a sprawling mess of concrete, particularly in a small ancient village that does not have the infrastructure to support it.
Loss of view, restrictions of road access, impacts on safety, impacts on trees, wildlife, habitat loss are all perfectly appropriate reasons for not allowing this to happen.
HELAA Chapter 4 identifies PLA0008 as a potential development site.
This is a contradiction given that RDC’s own policy states that these areas should remain as ‘strategic green gaps’.
It would be a crime for these fields to be turned into a sprawling mess of concrete, particularly in a small ancient village that does not have the infrastructure to support it.
Loss of view, restrictions of road access, impacts on safety, impacts on trees, wildlife, habitat loss are all perfectly appropriate reasons for not allowing this to happen.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25958
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Playden Protect
HELAA Chapter 4 identifies PLA0008, PLA0012 and PLA0013 as potential development sites.
The small village of Playden does not have the infrastructure to support more people and housing.
The ‘potential sites’ suggested also lie within RDC’s ‘strategic green gap’ areas, therefore proposing such development is a contradiction.
It would be a crime for these fields to turn into a sprawling mess of concrete, and would in turn cause loss of view, serious impact on wildlife habitat and the environment, impact on road access and also public safety.
HELAA Chapter 4 identifies PLA0008, PLA0012 and PLA0013 as potential development sites.
The small village of Playden does not have the infrastructure to support more people and housing.
The ‘potential sites’ suggested also lie within RDC’s ‘strategic green gap’ areas, therefore proposing such development is a contradiction.
It would be a crime for these fields to turn into a sprawling mess of concrete, and would in turn cause loss of view, serious impact on wildlife habitat and the environment, impact on road access and also public safety.