Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
Search representations
Results for Swann Fairrie Associates search
New searchComment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
8.23
Representation ID: 25961
Received: 23/07/2024
Respondent: Swann Fairrie Associates
Regarding the increased need for affordable housing throughout the borough. I believe that if 100% of affordable housing developments are to be built in semi-rural communities they should be kept to small clusters of 8 units or less in new build developments in order to provide safe, secure housing for all.
Regarding the increased need for affordable housing throughout the borough. I believe that if 100% of affordable housing developments are to be built in semi-rural communities they should be kept to small clusters of 8 units or less in new build developments in order to provide safe, secure housing for all.
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
135. What are your views on the Council's proposed policy on Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople?
Representation ID: 26194
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Swann Fairrie Associates
This site was not suitable for housing so why is the site acceptable for Gypsey, Travellers and Show people? First, access does not exist and the hedgerow must be cut for the visibility splay on site to be entered from a busy B2089 with 40 mph traffic on a blind bend. Secondly, the eastern boundary is a privately owned, narrow track and to create access to the site would mean destruction of the ancient, assart field system. The site slopes to the north and northwest so terracing is necessary for the many caravans proposed and is boggy at the north end. Creating mobile home sites here is wholesale destruction to the National landscape. Creating 6 pitches onto such a site would mean a loss of the entire open green space. Why is Flimwell targeted for 11 of 14 proposed Gypsy, Traveller pitches? Nymbism from Bexhill?
This site was not suitable for housing so why is the site acceptable for Gypsey, Travellers and Show people? First, access does not exist and the hedgerow must be cut for the visibility splay on site to be entered from a busy B2089 with 40 mph traffic on a blind bend. Secondly, the eastern boundary is a privately owned, narrow track and to create access to the site would mean destruction of the ancient, assart field system. The site slopes to the north and northwest so terracing is necessary for the many caravans proposed and is boggy at the north end. Creating mobile home sites here is wholesale destruction to the National landscape. Creating 6 pitches onto such a site would mean a loss of the entire open green space. Why is Flimwell targeted for 11 of 14 proposed Gypsy, Traveller pitches? Nymbism from Bexhill?
Comment
Rother Local Plan 2020-2040 (Regulation 18)
135. What are your views on the Council's proposed policy on Gypsies, Travellers and Travelling Showpeople?
Representation ID: 27267
Received: 21/07/2024
Respondent: Swann Fairrie Associates
Regarding the above site to the south of the A268 (GYP0003), I object on the basis that it is not large enough for 5 pitches. It is also near ancient woodlands and has trees with TPO's.
Regarding the above site to the south of the A268 (GYP0003), I object on the basis that it is not large enough for 5 pitches. It is also near ancient woodlands and has trees with TPO's.
