Main Modifications to the Proposed Submission Core Strategy

Robertsbridge benefits from a good selection of employment and services and REG acts to maintain and improve on the breadth and depth of activities in the village. However evidence suggests that following the largest ever developments in the village during the early 1990s, not a time of recession, the quality and depth of services particularly retail declined considerably. In the years of this recession however the quality and depth of services in the village has increased with new businesses emerging and no net loss of retail. So additional housing development does not connote sustainability.

We believe that what is needed is controlled and sensitive numbers of development occurring recognising that Robertsbridge is better able than many villages to take a share of development. However that share of development must not be an unfair share which prevents assimilation of such into the warp and weft of the village.

It also must be accompanied by an positive upgrading of facilities which will improve sustainability such as better cycle ways, bridle paths and footpaths to assist recreation and tourism, improved medical facilities at the surgery and better facilities for our dentists.

Flooding is a major concern which has not been eliminated by the flood defence work post 2000. Recent flooding which has been serious and affected different parts of the village even parts at elevated positions, needs to be addressed before any further sites and proposals are entertained. It is possible to alleviate flood risk away from the flood plain but it does need proper plans and land set aside so to do.

We also need to remove the various congestion problems in the village if we are to accept more development even the 119 additional dwellings originally envisaged. Congestion results from a number of reasons: on street parking, the use of the village as a shopping centre, the schools on George Hill, the busses serving the Community College, parking as a result of people's desire to avoid paying for parking at the Station car park, the level crossing itself. All of these make for problems currently in the village and even greater numbers of houses will only exacerbate the problem unless many measures are taken before any new development is approved.

More facilities for business needs to be allocated because without that as a backbone the community will lose its sustainability.

We also believe that RDC have been identifying sites prematurely otherwise they would not have any basis at all for suggesting a further increase in Robertsbridge numbers. Surely that is for the site selection part of the plan process, not here where it should be a matter of putting down principles of policy rather than specific numbers. We do not believe this aspect of the policy is legally compliant.

We believe that this proposal does not adequately protect the existing use of employment land particularly in villages such as Robertsbridge. This problem is exacerbated by the recent changes to changes of use legislation.

An industrialestate except in exceptionalcircumstances is not appropriate to a village, especially where villages have grown up with some industrial life in them.

So provision for commercial activity needs to be integrated into the grain of the villages such as Robertsbridge.

Therefore there needs to be stronger protection in terms of a policy for retaining existing business use and the amendment to the policy EC2 does not achieve that.