Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25317
Received: 12/07/2024
Respondent: Catherine Isbell
The plan proposes that this should be achieved by increasing the density to 60-90+ dph. I would suggest that a better strategy would be to place pavements and cycle paths so people on the outskirts of town can have a choice of transport methods.
Proposed small developments are rejected by RDC because they're not accessible and yet they're often next to a school or pub. Isn't it equally (or more) important that our health, education and social needs are accessible other than by car? Perhaps by linking those services and then developing around them, we can finally reduce the strain at school run times?
The plan proposes that this should be achieved by increasing the density to 60-90+ dph. I would suggest that a better strategy would be to place pavements and cycle paths so people on the outskirts of town can have a choice of transport methods.
Proposed small developments are rejected by RDC because they're not accessible and yet they're often next to a school or pub. Isn't it equally (or more) important that our health, education and social needs are accessible other than by car? Perhaps by linking those services and then developing around them, we can finally reduce the strain at school run times?
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 27375
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council
Answer: Access to jobs, services and facilities as priority is fine if its relevant. The local plan states that no jobs will be created in Catsfield by building these houses.
Anyone living here will still need to travel to a job, by car. Services and Facilities as noted above are not available locally and will still be accessed by car.
“Village Clusters” may look practical with achievable net gains on paper but where is the evidence that “clustering” is a proven strategy and not just a trending idea? The assumption is that by clustering with a town or large village in the local mapped area there will be a net gain where “where people can meet most of their daily needs within a reasonable distance of their home, with the option to walk, wheel, cycle (active travel) or use public transport”. This is simply not true when applied to Catsfield. Most of the daily needs of most people in the Parish of Catsfield require the use of a car. Most of the needs of the residents in the Village of Catsfield require the use of a car. (The availability of a local Shop & Pub and School do not meet the needs of most people). Most of the shop customers arrive by Car. Most school children arrive by car, most pub users arrive by car.
Wheeling or Cycling require safe road spaces to wheel or cycle on. The roads around Catsfield are not safe. Cycling to Battle for example is dangerous, there are no cycle lanes and fast-moving traffic. Using public transport is simply not viable. (Too infrequent, only in the daytime, expensive, slow, only destinations are Battle and Bexhill) note no Flexibus service in Catsfield. The number of passengers (other than the school bus) using local transport will show how unpractical this option is.
Live well locally is fine ambition but the local plan will not deliver this for Catsfield, and the stated goal does not support the need for development that will destroy our environment without upside gains.