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

Do not agree - We do not believe that PS24 (the preferred site) is suitable having previously been rejected for reasons that have not changed. In addition Peasmarsh Parish Council believes a single large site would be the most detrimental to the present character of the village and that three sites PS5 Land north east of Tanhouse or PS6 Land adjacent to Superstore - South East and PS7S - Land south of Oaklands, Main Street would be more suitable and could be combined to achieve the desired number of dwellings.

Do not agree - Amendments detailed below
I) Statement - Some 45 dwellings are provided as shown on the Policies Map, of which 40% are affordable
Amend to read - Some 45 dwellings are provided as shown on the Policies Map, of which a minimum of 60% are affordable
Reason for amendment - To provide housing for people who would otherwise not be able to buy decent homes and 40% is insufficient if this is in any way meant to be meaningful goal
II) Statement - vehicle access is to Main Street to the satisfaction of the Highways Authority
Amend to read - Vehicle access to Main Street to the satisfaction of an independent authority not associated with either RDC or ESCC
Reason for amendment - To guarantee the impartiality of the decision as to the suitability of this access
III) Statement - additional pedestrian/cycle access:
(a) To the north-east of the site, connecting down the length of the eastern boundary via a green corridor
(b) Southward connecting to the footpath network
Amend to read - (a) to the north-east of the site, connecting down the length of the eastern boundary a permeable pavement as part of the green corridor to facilitate pedestrian access from the north east of the site
Reason for amendment - A green corridor during the winter months and periods of sustained wet weather will become impractical during these periods due to mud, the limited amount of daylight hours and a general lack of street lighting in Peasmarsh
No amendments to (b)
IV) Statement - Provision of a children's play area, which should be subject to passive surveillance from residential frontages
Delete
Reason for amendment - Additional play facilities in the village are no longer needed
V) Statement - Provision of open space to the south of the site, incorporating the traditional orchard within it, with funding arrangements for on-going management to maintain as open space and biodiversity interest
Amend to read - Provision of open space to the south of the site, incorporating the traditional orchard within it, with funding arrangements for on-going management from either central government, ESCC or RDC to maintain as open space and biodiversity interest
Reason for amendment - To ensure that the local community are protected from a financial burden for the ongoing maintenance of this space
VI) Statement - Retention of other existing ecological and High Weald AONB character features so far as reasonably practicable, including historic field boundaries, boundary hedgerows, existing trees and existing pond
Amend to read - Retention of other existing ecological and High Weald AONB character features, including historic field boundaries, boundary hedgerows, existing trees and existing pond
Reason for amendment - "as reasonably practicable" is very loose wording and is very much open to interpretation of what is meant by "reasonably practicable"
VII) Statement - Maintenance and reinforcement existing landscaped boundaries around the site and creation of new ones on exposed western edges
Amend to read - Maintenance and reinforcement existing landscaped boundaries around the site and creation of new ones on exposed western edges by either central government, ESCC or RDC
Reason for amendment - To ensure that the local community are protected from a financial burden for the ongoing maintenance of these boundaries

Do not agree - We believe that the three sites as specified in the response to question 81 above should be the proposed development boundary and that figure 109 should be amended accordingly to reflect these sites
Preferred site PS24 - Reasons for objection
1. Access to the A268 via Pippins is extremely problematic in terms of driver sight line when exiting the proposed site due to the proximity of the hill to the west between Tanhouse Lane and The Cock Inn as this stretch of the A268 is in a 40mph limit (which is often being exceeded by motorists) and approaching vehicles cannot be seen until they are passing The Cock Inn. To the east side there is a blind bend from The Old Post Office to approximately Crookwell and although this is a 30mph limit motorist quite often exceed it - as can be confirmed by the local Speedwatch group
2. Entry to the site is by the Highways Authority own admission only achievable in principle and requires presumably the demolition of a perfectly habitable property 'Pippins' to achieve access to the site and even then a priority system will be required at the rear end
3. It is unclear from the proposal as to whether or not there is provision for pedestrian access on this entry / exit road as providing these will reduce the width even further and not providing them will be to put people's lives at risk
4. The creation of this access will undoubtedly have a severe impact on the occupiers of the properties that will be either side of this road who will have to endure the comings and goings day and night of vehicles and the like to the 45 dwellings
5. As this proposal relies very much on the owners of Pippins being prepared to sell their property to any potential developer, which presumably they have said they will, what provision has been made should they change their mind or cannot agree a sale price with the developer - would this result in a compulsory purchase order?
6. The two options to connect the footpath to the south and west are not specified other that they require third party land so it is not possible to judge what the implications of this may be
7. Though to a lesser extent properties abounding the proposed site will also be greatly impacted by this proposed development
8. The 2007 Open Spaces, Sport and Recreation Study is now dated - at the time play need in the village categorised Peasmarsh as only having a medium term need. There has been ongoing work to improve current play facilities with an ambitious programme, designed with substantial consultation with local people, to substantially upgrade the present provision, which is within the recommended distance for even young children. The Parish Council believes that it would be detrimental to the character and cohesion of the village to develop a separate play area with no guarantee of ongoing maintenance
9. The inclusion of the orchard with the TPO, although commendable, does raise concerns as to who and how it will be manage to ensure that as the trees deteriorate and die that they will not become a hazard to anyone using this area
10. The pond on the proposed pedestrian through-route also raises safety concerns and issues particularly in regard to children who may use the route or play in the vicinity of this pond
11. The site is very badly drained. There is major concern from the lower lying houses to the eastern side of the site that they already face flooding from run off from the sites ponds and streams and this would be further exacerbated by any development here. The idea of "creating a multi-functional SuDS" alongside the pedestrian link in the form of a "wetland habitat green corridor" suggests that such flooding has been considered with scant regard to the impact on neighbouring properties and that such damage is considered to be acceptable within this proposal (See attached photographs - sent by email with a second copy of Peasmarsh Parish Council's response)
12. That the site is well hidden is a surprising suggestion as once built upon it would be as visible as any of the alternate sites dismissed as unsuitable because of AONB
13. A number of the assertions stated in the 'key opportunities' for this site are little more than conjecture and stated from an urban attitude towards 'open space' rather than a rural one. For example the school already has already in place access to a wide range of environmental opportunities, including a forest school, and a community orchard is not seen as a priority for the parish but rather as a major risk and potential unwarranted additional financial burden to the local community


Peasmarsh Parish Council preferred sites and reasons for choosing them
PS5
Appendix 3 Assessed Sites - Options - The following statement is made as the justification for rejection of this site
"A sloping pasture bounded by a stream and historic field boundary. Although adjacent to the supermarket and bus service, it is further from other village services and is accessed via a narrow, hedgerow-lined country lane. It is exposed above across low lying and attractive High Weald Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB) countryside to the west, which is typified by medieval field patterns. The topography is such that the site feels remote from the main built-up area of the village. Development would have a negative impact on rural AONB character".
The supermarket and petrol station are the main village services and other than the primary school, the recreation ground, Flackley Ash Hotel and The Horse and Cart public house there are no other services within Peasmarsh so to state it will be further away from services makes little sense as the distance between this site and PS24 is minimal in terms of the other services and PS24 is actually further from the supermarket and Flackley Ash Hotel.
The access could be easily obtained from the existing roundabout adjacent to Jempson's giving much safer access to the A268 from the already established access road to Jempson's Supermarket and is also much closer to amenities i.e. Supermarket, Post Office, Pharmacy etc.
As this important amenity will be within walking distance people will have no need to use their cars when shopping which will have a positive impact not only on the environment but also people's health
There may be an impact on ANOB but given that the Tanhouse Yard business units are located at the North West edge of the site and that there are also several dwellings around the periphery any impact to ANOB would appear to be minimal.
The statement "the site feels remote" is a subjective opinion rather than a statement of fact and could just as easily be applied to the location of PS24
PS6
Although the impact of this site on ANOB maybe marginally greater than PS5 this is more than offset by the supermarket and petrol station to the north of it as both are clearly visible from the A268 from Flackley Ash Hotel (to the west) up to The Cock Inn (to the east) and thus totally obscure the site. The site also links onto PS5 with the same benefits of access etc.
PS7S
The impact of this site on ANOB is somewhat less than PS5 and PS6 and also links onto PS6 with the same benefits of access as PS5 and could be developed at a later stage as opposed to one large development and with less impact on existing properties.
It is interesting that PS7N Land at Oaklands, Main Street is rejected for highway safety issues, run off to the pond and access to frontage via third party lands which are all issues also associated with PS24 and one wonders why PS24 is preferred when this site is not.

General observations on constraints within Peasmarsh infrastructure
With the re-development of The Maltings complex adding ten extra dwellings and the proposal to add another 45 dwellings this will increase the population of the village by around 120 (2.3 people per household 2011 census) an approximate 10% increase. It is hard to see how the village will be able to absorb this increase without the issues detailed below being addressed - which sadly this document fails to acknowledge or address
a. Drainage - Concerns that a number of issues regarding the drainage and in particular the foul water have been reported over a number of years and the Parish Council have regularly been told this is due to the Iden treatment works running near to its maximum capacity
b. Doctors surgery - Residents at present have to go to either The Rye Medical Centre or The Northiam Surgery both of which will be under increased pressure by developments within the surrounding villages and may have to start limiting their patients to those within their catchment area
c. Dentist - A lack of local access to NHS provision
d. Bus service - Reduced to a two hourly service in April 2016, day time only and more limited on Saturdays, with the prospect that this will be reduce even further due to budgetary constraints at ESCC
e. The village primary school, already extended to meet local need, is nearing capacity and will almost certainly struggle to accommodate additional children with little space to extend further
f. Utilities - Gas pressure and broadband are already experiencing difficulties and are regularly failing the community whilst upgrading is not a priority to the companies involved
g. Employment opportunities are very limited and what few there are tend to be mostly in the service and tourist sector, which are generally minimum wage or at best low paid, making even so called affordable housing no more than a dream

In conclusion
We acknowledge and agree that there is a need for more affordable housing and would stress that this is not a case of 'NIMBY' ism but simply that the proposed site, PS24, is ill conceived and fraught with potential problems and we would urge you to reconsider the proposed site in the light of the comments you will receive and give careful consideration to the alternative sites we have suggested
However, there is a general feeling that this is 'A done deal' and that irrespective of what valid objections, concerns and issues that are raised about the suitability of this preferred site that these will be totally ignored and that this is merely a rubber stamp exercise to give RDC the excuse to say that a consultation had taken place. This view is reinforced by the knowledge that a TPO was placed on the orchard at PS24 prior to the launch of the consultation and that Peasmarsh Parish Council is in possession of an email from Richard Wilson at RDC, dated 2014, in which he states "that the only feasible sites for development in Peasmarsh are near to Jempson's Supermarket"
Below is a summary of a note from a resident regarding a previous rejected development of the PS24 site and is worthy of your consideration given the consequences that ensued for the developer involved
"A development of this type on this land was rejected in 1972 causing the development company Galleon Estates to go bankrupt and into liquidation and things have deteriorated over the thirty one years I have lived here in so much as there is now only one shop that doesn't open on Sundays, public transport only exists with financial support from the Parish Council and employment in the village in the form of a garage and repair workshop together with the wood yard have already gone for the benefit of housing development.
On a more personal note my houses was built by Galleon Estates and I have in the Conveyance for the property dated 25th August 1972 in the first schedule the full and free right of way along what I believe is Green Lane to enable access to the rear of my land and would be interested to know how this will be maintained should this proposed development go ahead. I believe that all four houses that were built by Galleon Estates have this same right"

General observations on constraints within Peasmarsh infrastructure

With the re-development of The Maltings complex adding ten extra dwellings and the proposal to add another 45 dwellings this will increase the population of the village by around 120 (2.3 people per household 2011 census) an approximate 10% increase. It is hard to see how the village will be able to absorb this increase without the issues detailed below being addressed - which sadly this document fails to acknowledge or address.

a. Drainage - Concerns that a number of issues regarding the drainage and in particular the foul water have been reported over a number of years and the Parish Council have regularly been told this is due to the Iden treatment works running near to its maximum capacity.

b. Doctors surgery - Residents at present have to go to either The Rye Medical Centre or The Northiam Surgery both of which will be under increased pressure by developments within the surrounding villages and may have to start limiting their patients to those within their catchment area.

c. Dentist - A lack of local access to NHS provision.

d. Bus service - Reduced to a two hourly service in April 2016, day time only and more limited on Saturdays, with the prospect that this will be reduce even further due to budgetary constraints at ESCC.

e. The village primary school, already extended to meet local need, is nearing capacity and will almost certainly struggle to accommodate additional children with little space to extend further.

f. Utilities - Gas pressure and broadband are already experiencing difficulties and are regularly failing the community whilst upgrading is not a priority to the companies involved.

g. Employment opportunities are very limited and what few there are tend to be mostly in the service and tourist sector, which are generally minimum wage or at best low paid, making even so called affordable housing no more than a dream.

Additional supporting information was supplied which can be viewed here:
http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=28053