Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Search representations
Results for East Sussex County Council search
New searchComment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 92: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy WES4? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
Representation ID: 23675
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Westfield
The site has high potential for prehistoric, Roman (including a major Roman road) and medieval archaeological remains relating to the historic core of Westfield Moor, so should be subject to archaeological assessment before being allocated.
-AMBER
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Westfield
The site has high potential for prehistoric, Roman (including a major Roman road) and medieval archaeological remains relating to the historic core of Westfield Moor, so should be subject to archaeological assessment before being allocated.
-AMBER
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 93: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?
Representation ID: 23676
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Westfield
The three sites will require archaeological assessment to clarify risk, boundary could then be modified to exclude significant archaeological remains.
-AMBER
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
VILLAGES WITH SITE ALLOCATIONS page 219
Westfield
The three sites will require archaeological assessment to clarify risk, boundary could then be modified to exclude significant archaeological remains.
-AMBER
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 94: Do you agree with the recommendation regarding the development boundary at Brede and Cackle Street? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to this sett
Representation ID: 23677
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Brede and Cackle Street
Yes, including keeping a distinct gap between the two historic settlements.
-GREEN
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Brede and Cackle Street
Yes, including keeping a distinct gap between the two historic settlements.
-GREEN
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 95: Do you agree with the recommendation to retain the development boundary at Guestling Green in its existing form? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied
Representation ID: 23678
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Guestling Green
Yes
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Guestling Green
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 96: Do you agree with the recommendation to retain the development boundary at Icklesham in its existing form? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to th
Representation ID: 23679
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Icklesham
Yes, this retains the historic ribbon character of the settlement
-GREEN
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Icklesham
Yes, this retains the historic ribbon character of the settlement
-GREEN
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 97: Do you agree with the recommendation to remove the development boundary at Norman's Bay? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to this settlement?
Representation ID: 23680
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Normans Bay
Yes
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Normans Bay
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 98: Do you agree with the recommendations regarding thedevelopment boundaries at Pett and Friar's Hill? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to this sett
Representation ID: 23681
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Pett and Friars Hill
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Pett and Friars Hill
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 99: Do you agree with the recommendation to remove the development boundary at Pett Level? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to this settlement?
Representation ID: 23682
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Pett Level
Yes
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Pett Level
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 100: Do you agree with the recommendation regarding the development boundary at Staplecross? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to this settlement?
Representation ID: 23683
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Staplecross
Yes
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Staplecross
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 101: Do you agree with the recommendation to retain the development boundary at Three Oaks in its existing form? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to
Representation ID: 23684
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Three Oaks
Yes
Archaeology
Please note that for most answers in this section a Red, Amber or Green rating has been assigned. In providing these responses, regard has been had to paragraph 169 of the NPPF. We are of the view that in order to satisfy this part of the NPPF, some of the proposed site allocations should be subject to archaeological assessment prior to the Pre-Submission version of the DaSA being published - these particular sites are identified below. For all the proposed allocations there will be a requirement for the subsequent planning applications to satisfy paragraph 128 of the NPPF
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Three Oaks
Yes