Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
Search representations
Results for CPRE Sussex search
New searchComment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 23: Do you agree with the policy approach to managing environmental pollution through the planning process and with the proposed policy wording?
Representation ID: 22671
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
Policy DEN7 would improve if impacts of biodiversity were included in the consideration.
Policy DEN7 would improve if impacts of biodiversity were included in the consideration.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 55: Do you agree with the preferred sites for development at Beckley Four Oaks? If not, which sites should be preferred?
Representation ID: 22672
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
Preferred site FO12 should not be included as it constitutes the green gap between the communities of Beckley and Four Oaks. Logic would argue for sites BE10 and/or FO13, and roadside development on FO8 and/or FO4.
Preferred site FO12 should not be included as it constitutes the green gap between the communities of Beckley and Four Oaks. Logic would argue for sites BE10 and/or FO13, and roadside development on FO8 and/or FO4.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 57: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy BEC2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
Representation ID: 22673
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
No - it should be deleted.
No - it should be deleted.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 72: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HUR1? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
Representation ID: 22674
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
No - the site should be deleted because (a) it is too large for a single access development; (b) because it on the wrong side of the A21 for all village amenities, save a couple of restaurants, and (c) access on to the A21 is unsafe.
No - the site should be deleted because (a) it is too large for a single access development; (b) because it on the wrong side of the A21 for all village amenities, save a couple of restaurants, and (c) access on to the A21 is unsafe.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 73: Do you agree with the requirements of Policy HUR2? If not, how would you wish to see it amended?
Representation ID: 22675
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
No, the site should be deleted. The identification of this site seems speculative, as the commercial activity on it continues. The access would be unsafe.
No, the site should be deleted. The identification of this site seems speculative, as the commercial activity on it continues. The access would be unsafe.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 74: Do you agree with the proposed development boundary? If not, how would you like to see it amended?
Representation ID: 22676
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
If Neighbourhood Plans are to have any meaning at all, then they should be able to respect parish boundaries. This proposal does not, and the boundary should stop at the edge of Hurst Green parish.
If Neighbourhood Plans are to have any meaning at all, then they should be able to respect parish boundaries. This proposal does not, and the boundary should stop at the edge of Hurst Green parish.
Comment
Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan - Options and Preferred Options
QUESTION 78: Do you agree with the preferred site for development at Northiam? If not, which site should be preferred?
Representation ID: 22677
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
Given the amount of development proposals approved by Rother in Northiam, why is there any need for even this small site? The number of six further dwellings can easily be absorbed within the Plan period by a process of natural planning evolution. It is an example where the windfall policy for rural Rother simply does not work and the village should actually be credited with all new dwellings within their development boundary, not just for sites over 5 in number.
Given the amount of development proposals approved by Rother in Northiam, why is there any need for even this small site? The number of six further dwellings can easily be absorbed within the Plan period by a process of natural planning evolution. It is an example where the windfall policy for rural Rother simply does not work and the village should actually be credited with all new dwellings within their development boundary, not just for sites over 5 in number.
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: 22678
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
Support the preferred sites.
Support the preferred sites.
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: 22679
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
Para 5 generally
We support Rother enabling parish and town councils pursuing their own Neighbourhood Plans, but question the ability of Rother to co-ordinate satisfactorily the outcomes of those NPs to secure sufficient housing development sites within their set timetable. Will Rother offer more help to local parish and town councils to secure that objective?
Para 5 generally
We support Rother enabling parish and town councils pursuing their own Neighbourhood Plans, but question the ability of Rother to co-ordinate satisfactorily the outcomes of those NPs to secure sufficient housing development sites within their set timetable. Will Rother offer more help to local parish and town councils to secure that objective?
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: 22680
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: CPRE Sussex
Para. 6.20
Rother should incorporate a new policy on solar energy, ie Policy DRM2 to encourage solar on industrial buildings, including retro-fitting, provided such installations do not have an adverse effect on the landscape, and generally do not adversely impact neighbouring users and do not result in the loss of Grade 1, 2 and 3a land.
Para. 6.20
Rother should incorporate a new policy on solar energy, ie Policy DRM2 to encourage solar on industrial buildings, including retro-fitting, provided such installations do not have an adverse effect on the landscape, and generally do not adversely impact neighbouring users and do not result in the loss of Grade 1, 2 and 3a land.
