Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 24925
Received: 26/06/2024
Respondent: Mrs Nicola Nutt
Dwellings would be too near the ancient woodland. There is the impact on wild life including engagement species.
Numbers are disproportionate.
The local shop has parking issues, increased usage could be fatal.
The GP is present 20 hours a week. An extra 40 families would be detrimental.
Inadequate public transport.
There is no employment in the village.
Broad Oak does not have the infra structure to cope.
Entering the A28 is an issue due to blind spots.
Risk of light pollution and noise further disturbing nature in the ancient woodland.
This is documented as an area of natural beauty and the above information does not support this being ruined with developments when other areas promote better opportunities to the proposed residents.
Dwellings would be too near the ancient woodland. There is the impact on wild life including engagement species.
Numbers are disproportionate.
The local shop has parking issues, increased usage could be fatal.
The GP is present 20 hours a week. An extra 40 families would be detrimental.
Inadequate public transport.
There is no employment in the village.
Broad Oak does not have the infra structure to cope.
Entering the A28 is an issue due to blind spots.
Risk of light pollution and noise further disturbing nature in the ancient woodland.
This is documented as an area of natural beauty and the above information does not support this being ruined with developments when other areas promote better opportunities to the proposed residents.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Representation ID: 25857
Received: 22/07/2024
Respondent: Mr Richard Hedger
Why is Etchingham only having 16 new houses allocated to it when it is on the list of 'Good Sustainability'?
Robertsbridge is, again, bearing the brunt of all development and this should be more equally divided amongst the villages.
Your identified housing is 178. After the neighbourhood plan, I am sure this was closer to 200? your list of planning applications appears incomplete as it doesn't show the planning behind Culverwells.
Battle is a much larger settlement and that is only taking a further 200 to make 485. So in comparison, the requirement for Robertsbridge to have 305 is excessive.
Battle has far greater amenities and the residents of Robertsbridge already have to travel to Battle for half of their doctors appointments.
Why is Etchingham only having 16 new houses allocated to it when it is on the list of 'Good Sustainability'?
Robertsbridge is, again, bearing the brunt of all development and this should be more equally divided amongst the villages.
Your identified housing is 178. After the neighbourhood plan, I am sure this was closer to 200? your list of planning applications appears incomplete as it doesn't show the planning behind Culverwells.
Battle is a much larger settlement and that is only taking a further 200 to make 485. So in comparison, the requirement for Robertsbridge to have 305 is excessive.
Battle has far greater amenities and the residents of Robertsbridge already have to travel to Battle for half of their doctors appointments.