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 102: Do you agree with the recommendation to retain the development boundary at Winchelsea in its existing form? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to
Representation ID: 23685
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Yes this retains growth within the post-medieval core and does not impact the abandoned medieval sections of the town. However consideration should be given to the very high potential for archaeological remains, including medieval cellars, as well as the large number of extant historic buildings.
-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
Yes this retains growth within the post-medieval core and does not impact the abandoned medieval sections of the town. However consideration should be given to the very high potential for archaeological remains, including medieval cellars, as well as the large number of extant historic buildings.
-GREEN
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 103: Do you agree with the recommendation to remove the development boundary at Winchelsea Beach? If not, please explain how you wish the development boundary to be applied to this settlement
Representation ID: 23686
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER VILLAGES WITH DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARIES IN 2006 LOCAL PLAN Page 317
Winchelsea Beach
The Smeatons Harbour section of this area has a high archaeological potential.
-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
Winchelsea Beach
The Smeatons Harbour section of this area has a high archaeological potential.
-GREEN
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 104: Do you agree with the preferred sites for permanent Gypsy and Traveller pitches across the District? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?
Representation ID: 23687
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Gypsies and Travellers
The sites would need to be assessed in relation to archaeological potential and areas of significant remains scoped out.
-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
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Gypsies and Travellers
The sites would need to be assessed in relation to archaeological potential and areas of significant remains scoped out.
-AMBER
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 105: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy GYP1, including the boundary as defined on the Policies Map? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
Representation ID: 23688
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Gypsies and Travellers
The site has a medium potential to contain prehistoric, Roman and medieval remains. Planning application would be expected to include an archaeological assessment in line with NPPF.
-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 POLICIES Page 337
Gypsies and Travellers
The site has a medium potential to contain prehistoric, Roman and medieval remains. Planning application would be expected to include an archaeological assessment in line with NPPF.
-GREEN
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 108: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy GUE1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
Representation ID: 23689
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Guestling Green- Land at former highway depot
The site is heavily disturbed and of no archaeological interest
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 POLICIES Page 337
Guestling Green- Land at former highway depot
The site is heavily disturbed and of no archaeological interest
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 109: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy (MAR1)? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
Representation ID: 23690
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Marley Lane
The site already carried an archaeological planning condition RR/3165/CC, so future applications would be expected to be consistent - 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 POLICIES Page 337
Marley Lane
The site already carried an archaeological planning condition RR/3165/CC, so future applications would be expected to be consistent - GREEN
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 110: Do you agree with a policy to support the continued allocation for the re-instatement of the railway link from Robertsbridge to Bodiam along its original route?
Representation ID: 23691
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Rother Valley Railway
Yes, although consideration must be given to archaeological costs in recording the industrial / railway archaeology - 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 POLICIES Page 337
Rother Valley Railway
Yes, although consideration must be given to archaeological costs in recording the industrial / railway archaeology - GREEN
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 107: Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Guestling Green? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?
Representation ID: 23692
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Guestling Green- Land at former highway depot
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 POLICIES Page 337
Guestling Green- Land at former highway depot
Yes
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 111: Do you have any comments on this scope or content of the new Local Plan that are not covered by other questions?
Representation ID: 23693
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Archaeology
The Local Plan is rather lacking in relation to Heritage and Archaeology. It will be important that sites we have highlighted as amber and red risk are fully assessed.
The recommendations about archaeological interest and risk in the RAG assessment which have been submitted by ESCC Archaeology Section to Rother DC in January 2017 for each of the site allocations should appear in the texts for each of the site allocation documents in Part 2 of the Local Plan (DaSA). In that way an early understanding of the key issues will be available to those using the plan documents.
Archaeology
OTHER POLICIES Page 337
Any other comments not covered in the questions
The Local Plan is rather lacking in relation to Heritage and Archaeology. It will be important that sites we have highlighted as amber and red risk are fully assessed.
The recommendations about archaeological interest and risk in the RAG assessment which have been submitted by ESCC Archaeology Section to Rother DC in January 2017 for each of the site allocations should appear in the texts for each of the site allocation documents in Part 2 of the Local Plan (DaSA). In that way an early understanding of the key issues will be available to those using the plan documents.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 2: Do you agree that the optional water efficiency standard should be adopted and the proposed policy wording?
Representation ID: 23694
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: East Sussex County Council
Ecology
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Page 23
Yes.
Ecology
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Page 23
Yes.