Proposed Submission Development and Site Allocations (DaSA) Local Plan

Object

Representation ID: 24132

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

In responding to the consultation document Peasmarsh Parish Council wishes to state that it has neither the resources nor expertise to enable it to fully research all of the associated documentation for Rother District Council DaSA and Local Plan proposals and as such its response may not necessarily be in a format that the examiner may be accustomed to or under the correct test heading of Legal Compliance, Soundness and Duty to Cooperate.
Nevertheless it would urge the examiner to give due consideration to the genuine concerns and points being raised by the council on behalf of all its residents.
The parish council offers no opinion regarding correct procedure being followed but would point out that the community involvement aspect of the compliance has taken place over an extended period spanning quite a number of years as well as seeming to be somewhat disjointed and that it had not been consulted on the need for an additional play area in the village during RDC's process of formulating a DaSA Local Plan.
It is Peasmarsh Parish Council's considered opinion the proposed site should be rejected for the reasons given and as such the plan fails to meet the test of soundness.

Object

Representation ID: 24134

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The use of 'a good range of local services' is slightly disingenuous as the other good local services are part of the supermarket complex and, like the supermarket, are closed on Sundays and religious Bank Holidays. The supermarket has recently reduced its opening hours to 7pm.
The supermarkets own bus service, which had operated for 30 years, ceased in March 2018 making it difficult for those without cars to access its services and is especially true for older residents who struggle to walk up the steep hill adjacent to the supermarket when carrying shopping.
There is no longer a provision, within the village, for Mothers and Toddlers or Mother and Baby groups.
The parish council is of the opinion that the statement does not give a true picture of the village and that the wording is designed to create the impression that the additional housing being proposed can be sustained.

Object

Representation ID: 24135

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The proposed number of houses is 50 (Policy PEA1) if this figure is combined with the 10 allowed for at the recent Maltings development this give a total of 60 but para 11.177 refers to 45 dwellings.
This may just be an inability to perform simple maths or an attempt to surreptitiously increase the number of houses (the exact number is unclear 40 or 45?) in the village. However, whatever the reason may be it does not instil a feeling of confidence that this document has in anyway been prepared with a great deal of rigour or attention to detail.

Object

Representation ID: 24136

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Needs to be reduced to 40 dwellings as per 11.172 above and removal of open space as per 11.180 below.

Object

Representation ID: 24137

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

East Sussex County Council "in principle" view that "the proposed access point can achieve the necessary visibility and that an acceptable layout on the access road can be achieved, with a footway" shows either a breath-taking complacency or naivety by RDC given that not a shred of evidence is offered by ESCC to support their assertion.
The volume of traffic on the A268 is in excess of 80,000 vehicles per month (VAS data at eastern end of village and ESCC survey April 2013 and March 2015).
RDC acceptance that a priority system is needed begs the question why this is RDC's preferred site given the access difficulties, the demolition of a house and volume of traffic through the village whilst rejecting other, more accessible, sites that have been suggested.
The fact that RDC have felt it necessary to stipulate that a Road Traffic Audit should take place at the planning stage and not before is an indication of their concern regarding the sites unsuitability and which it refuses to acknowledge.
Is this a cynical attempt to ensure legitimate objections are ignored at the planning stage arguing no concerns were raised at the outset about the sites suitability thus approving it.

Object

Representation ID: 24138

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The parish council disagree that there is an existing shortfall given that the play area at the recreation ground was replaced in 2018 with brand new play equipment at a cost to the parish of £60,000 and also notes that the RDC study was carried out in 2007 but that RDC did not seek to update it prior to this documents publication.
One of the key aims of the redevelopment of the play area was to improve community cohesion by encouraging intergenerational use of the area. RDC was fully supportive of this development and match funded locally raised funds.
The proposed siting of this new play area, which would only be a short walk from the more central play area, directly contradicts the efforts of the village, and could inadvertently lead to the children living in that area becoming isolated and missing the opportunity to integrate and mix with other village children. Due to its central position and proximity to the recreation ground that more passive surveillance (see Policy PEA1 item iv) is possible at the existing play area than at the proposed site which is more to the fringes of the village and with fewer houses in its vicinity.

Object

Representation ID: 24139

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

Whilst this is a laudable idea it is fraught with problems not least of which is that children do like to climb and play on trees and although the trees have recently had Tree Preservation Orders (TPO) placed on them they are relatively old and are no longer deemed fit for use as part of a commercial orchard.
The parish council is concerned that these trees may already be unsafe and that even if funding for their maintenance is secured at planning stage that inevitably the burden of ensuring the trees are safe, inspected and maintained regularly will fall to the parish over time.

Object

Representation ID: 24140

Received: 06/12/2018

Respondent: Peasmarsh Parish Council

Legally compliant? Yes

Sound? No

Duty to co-operate? Yes

The area to the southern part of the site has experienced serious flooding to the surrounding residential gardens and this will be further exacerbated by the building of houses with the attendant run off from drives, roads and gardens and it is highly unlikely that a SuDS solution will provide a permanent solution to the problem.