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

Search representations

Results for Catsfield Parish Council search

New search New search

Comment

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

QUESTION 6: Do you agree with the policy approach to the retention of sites of social or economic value and the proposed policy wording?

Representation ID: 23279

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Disagree in part: The 18 month marketing campaign is too long and sites should be considered on their individual merits.

Comment

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

QUESTION 7: Do you agree with the policy approach to equestrian developments and the proposed policy wording?

Representation ID: 23280

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Disagree in part: the policy is discriminatory against equestrian activities in rural areas and should not go towards preventing people from owning horses. It would appear that Rother DC has not undertaken a comprehensive survey of 'Bridleways' in the Rother area, as Catsfield for one has few bridleways. Proposed sites should be considered on their individual merits.

Comment

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

QUESTION 67: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Catsfield? If not, which site(s) should be preferred?

Representation ID: 23281

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Agree: in the absence of any other sites the Parish Council consider the 'preferred' sites acceptable

Comment

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

QUESTION 68: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAT1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Representation ID: 23282

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Disagree in part: the density of housing for this site is too high. Parish Council is concerned with the impact of the additional volume of cars and provision of car parking spaces. The village lacks the infrastructure to accommodate this level of extra housing i.e. the primary school is oversubscribed. Access to the site is not good and on a road (the green) which has existing problems with speeding and dangerous overtaking. Lighting needs to be taken into careful consideration to prevent urbanisation of the village. Affordable housing: priority should be given to village residents and their families.

Comment

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

QUESTION 69: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy CAT2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Representation ID: 23283

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Though planning permission has been granted, priority should be given to village residents and their families when considering affordable housing.

Comment

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

QUESTION 70: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?

Representation ID: 23284

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Agree as proposed.

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: 23285

Received: 20/02/2017

Respondent: Catsfield Parish Council

Representation Summary:

Rother and Hastings Playing Pitch Strategy-Parish Council has the following comments:
The playing field is suitably adequate and well maintained. Parish Council is very disappointed that the report has been produced on a severe lack of understanding of the fields use. A lot of time/money is spent on maintaining the ground. It is not too long ago a new pavilion was built.
Catsfield has good recreational/sports facilities. The playing field has restrictions (bisected by a public footpath). Rother do not seem to understand that the Catsfield Rec is not just a playing/sports field-it is open to the public as well.

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