Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Search representations
Results for Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group search
New searchComment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 12: Do you agree with the proposed policy approach to external residential areas and the proposed policy wording? If not, what changes would you wish to see?
Representation ID: 22624
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
The car parking provision should be higher in areas stressed by car parking
We welcome a policy regarding external space for dwellings but it should apply to all houses of whatever size. We believe that sympathetic provision of waste bin AND cycle storage is essential for all new developments.
We have specific car parking provisions in the SRNP (IN1 and IN2) because of serious pressure for on-street parking, . We believe the provision should be higher than in CS Policy TR4, acknowledging 'the location' of any development. We suggest in areas like Robertsbridge a minimum standard of one parking space per bedroom up to a maximum of three plus one visitor space.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 13: Do you agree with the proposed policy approach to extensions to residential gardens and the proposed policy wording? If not, what changes would you wish to see?
Representation ID: 22625
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We believe that great care should be exercised in extending gardens to avoid suburbanisation. Our Policy EN3 aims to protect the landscape character of the countryside (inside the High Weald AONB). However, as a minimum we agree your Policy DHG4.
We believe that great care should be exercised in extending gardens to avoid suburbanisation. Our Policy EN3 aims to protect the landscape character of the countryside (inside the High Weald AONB). However, as a minimum we agree your Policy DHG4.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 14: Do you agree with the policy approach to extensions, annexes, alterations and outbuildings and the wording of the respective policies? If not, what changes would you wish to see?
Representation ID: 22626
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We broadly support Policy DHG5 but are concerned that the wording may seem to argue against modern extensions or alterations. We believe that, since modern additions can be very effective and in sympathy with older buildings, and can be preferred to pastiche alterations, if you would change the policy wording accordingly, we would be in complete agreement.
We broadly support Policy DHG5 but are concerned that the wording may seem to argue against modern extensions or alterations. We believe that, since modern additions can be very effective and in sympathy with older buildings, and can be preferred to pastiche alterations, if you would change the policy wording accordingly, we would be in complete agreement.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 15: Do you agree with the policy approaches to boundary treatments and drives and accesses and to the wording of the proposed cies? If not, what changes would you wish to see?
Representation ID: 22627
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We welcome Policy DHG7, since we have several examples in the village where inappropriate screen fencing is severely detrimental to the character of valued areas. Also we support Policy DHG8, but would wish you to add as a consideration the negative effect of the removal of on-street car parking spaces in any consideration of an application to create a new access or drive.
We welcome Policy DHG7, since we have several examples in the village where inappropriate screen fencing is severely detrimental to the character of valued areas. Also we support Policy DHG8, but would wish you to add as a consideration the negative effect of the removal of on-street car parking spaces in any consideration of an application to create a new access or drive.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 16: Do you agree with the policy approach to shopfronts and advertising and the proposed policy wording?
Representation ID: 22628
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We value your approach to shop fronts, which can create significant disadvantages, particularly in Conservation Areas such as we have in Robertsbridge. Our SRNP Policy EC1 specifically refers to this problem, where we require shop fronts and lighting to be in keeping with the Conservation Area. We go further and ask for positive restoration to a suitable character of shop fronts which have been allowed to become non-compliant in the past.
We value your approach to shop fronts, which can create significant disadvantages, particularly in Conservation Areas such as we have in Robertsbridge. Our SRNP Policy EC1 specifically refers to this problem, where we require shop fronts and lighting to be in keeping with the Conservation Area. We go further and ask for positive restoration to a suitable character of shop fronts which have been allowed to become non-compliant in the past.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 16a: Do you agree with the policy approach to holiday sites and the proposed policy wording?
Representation ID: 22630
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We support DEC2.
We support DEC2.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 17: Do you agree with the policy approach to existing employment sites and the proposed policy wording?
Representation ID: 22631
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We agree with Policy DEC3, but feel it should be stricter. In our Policy EC3, regarding employment retention, we have three criteria, which we suggest you should adopt, namely:
1 lack of ongoing viability, and
2 it not having been in use for the last 24 months, and a marketing campaign for alternative use having been pursued, and
3 any alternative use should either preserve some employment or community use or benefits.
We agree with Policy DEC3, but feel it should be stricter. In our Policy EC3, regarding employment retention, we have three criteria, which we suggest you should adopt, namely:
1 lack of ongoing viability, and
2 it not having been in use for the last 24 months, and a marketing campaign for alternative use having been pursued, and
3 any alternative use should either preserve some employment or community use or benefits.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 18: Do you agree with the policy approaches to maintaining landscape character and the High Weald AONB and to the respective proposed policy wordings?
Representation ID: 22632
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We welcome Policies DEN1 and DEN2. We have in the SRNP our own Policy EN3. In it we suggest certain specific objectives which development in the HWAONB should observe, as follows:
1 restore watercourses to improve water quality and prevent flooding;
2 use local materials and support woodland management;
3 respect historic gateways and cause no loss of banks or hedgerows;
4 not cause the loss or degradation of Ancient Woodland;
5 conserve / enhance ecology and productivity of the countryside.
We welcome Policies DEN1 and DEN2. We have in the SRNP our own Policy EN3. In it we suggest certain specific objectives which development in the HWAONB should observe, as follows:
1 restore watercourses to improve water quality and prevent flooding;
2 use local materials and support woodland management;
3 respect historic gateways and cause no loss of banks or hedgerows;
4 not cause the loss or degradation of Ancient Woodland;
5 conserve / enhance ecology and productivity of the countryside.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 20: Do you agree with the policy approach to supporting biodiversity and green space and to the proposed policy wording?
Representation ID: 22633
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
We believe Policy DEN4 could be strengthened by reference to your own Green Infrastructure Network. In our Policy EC4 we say that if there is any loss of natural features in a development, they must be replaced elsewhere on the site. DEN4(ii) does not say this and should.
We believe Policy DEN4 could be strengthened by reference to your own Green Infrastructure Network. In our Policy EC4 we say that if there is any loss of natural features in a development, they must be replaced elsewhere on the site. DEN4(ii) does not say this and should.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 21: Do you agree with the policy approach to sustainable drainage and the proposed policy wording?
Representation ID: 22634
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Neighbourhood Plan Steering Group
In a village such as Robertsbridge, which in the last 20 years has suffered seriously from both fluvial and surface water flooding, we welcome Policy DEN5 but would wish to see it strengthened in paragraph (i) by requiring any proposal to produce a prior full 12 month monitoring report on run-off from the site. Our Policy IN8 contains equivalent but differently phrased requirements.
In a village such as Robertsbridge, which in the last 20 years has suffered seriously from both fluvial and surface water flooding, we welcome Policy DEN5 but would wish to see it strengthened in paragraph (i) by requiring any proposal to produce a prior full 12 month monitoring report on run-off from the site. Our Policy IN8 contains equivalent but differently phrased requirements.
