Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options

Search representations

Results for East Sussex County Council search

New search New search

Comment

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

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

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

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

Archaeology

OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317

Guestling Green

Yes

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

Archaeology

OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317

Icklesham

Yes, this retains the historic ribbon character of the settlement
-GREEN

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

Archaeology

OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Normans Bay

Yes

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

Archaeology

OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317

Pett and Friars Hill

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

Archaeology

OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317

Pett Level

Yes

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

Archaeology

OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317

Staplecross

Yes

Full text:

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

Representation Summary:

Archaeology

OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317

Three Oaks

Yes

Full text:

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

For instructions on how to use the system and make comments, please see our help guide.