Site B16: Land at Breadsell Lane

Comment

Representation ID: 3523

Received: 21/07/2012

Once again a reference to the Baldslow link. There are no plans for this to be constructed - it has been cancelled: http://www.highways.gov.uk/roads/projects/29721.aspx

Comment

Representation ID: 3868

Received: 17/08/2012

This site is of a scale which is strategic in nature. Consideration of this site within the DM Plan doesn't appear to be consistent the Planning Strategy. Therefore development at this location should be resolved,at least in principle, through the Planning Strategy.

I also refer you to RDCs earlier comments made on this site, and specifically that development is only regarded as potentially sustainable were it to incorporate local shops/services.

No reference is made to access to the site and its relationship to land within Rother.

Both Councils must work together in consideration of this site, if it is pursued further.

Comment

Representation ID: 4570

Received: 17/08/2012

Our main concern at this site would be the provision of an adequate drainage system to manage surface water flows. Any planning application would need to be supported by a flood risk assessment which focused on this aspect. We are aware of Natural Englands serious concerns over impacts of development on the existing hydro-geological catchment which feeds the adjacent SSSI. The applicant would need to demonstrate that any drainage system would adequately manage flood risk whilst also protecting the integrity of the SSSI. We would expect to see a SUDs scheme take account of quantity, quality and amenity issues.

Support

Representation ID: 4578

Received: 13/08/2012

KLW object to the non-inclusion of land at Breadsell Lane as a housing site; and submit a report aimed to address concerns of both Natural England and HBC. KLW consider all evidence submitted to date provide a reasoned approach to justify its inclusion as an allocation. The Development boundary should be amended to include this site.

Object

Representation ID: 4591

Received: 13/08/2012

Objections on transport grounds - Previously bus operators have indicated they would not be able to operate a diverted service. Site is remotely located and would require new service which would not be commercially sustainable. Other modes of sustainable travel will not offer any real alternative as facilities are far away. Also, no access on to site from one side.

Comment

Representation ID: 4592

Received: 13/08/2012

This is an area where at present there are no recorded heritage assets on the Historic Environment Record (HER). However, this is likely to be due to a lack of recent survey and there is potential here for earthworks and buried archaeological remains of pre-historic to present day activityu. Appropriate assessment and evaluation survey would be required to understand the potential archaeological interest in advance of decision making on any proposed development.

Comment

Representation ID: 4593

Received: 13/08/2012

Landscape comments - There could be some limited scope for well contained developments in parts of the area (details provided in attached). Major constraints include proximity to AONB, SSSI and semi-natural woodland, retaining a countryside gap and protection of historic features.

Comment

Representation ID: 4595

Received: 13/08/2012

Ecology comments - Site adjacent to SSSI and designated SNCI, RIGGS, LNR and ancient woodland. Would need 15m buffer between development and ancient woodland. Site also includes land already agreed as compensatory habitat as part of Link Road development. There are notable species throughout the site and adjoining area covered by international legislation. Area has significant Green Infrastruture (GI) potential. Ecological surveys would be required and development could need to be informed by an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Object

Representation ID: 4667

Received: 07/08/2012

Despite the proposed reduction in the size of the development site, concerns still remain with respect to accessibility by public transport. There is a risk that the site could be car dominated if alternative options are not provided and this would have an adverse impact on the A21 to the northas well as being against sustainable development principles emphasised in the NPPF.

Further details would need to be provided before we would be in a position to comment more fully on the site including the quantum and mix of land uses and evidence the site can be made accessible.

Comment

Representation ID: 4788

Received: 17/08/2012

There is insufficient underground sewerage capacity to serve this development. This is not a constraint to development provided the connection is made to the nearest point with adequate capacity. This must be mentioned in site specific policy - suggested text provided.

Object

Representation ID: 5232

Received: 06/09/2012

Natural England has not seen any new information to suggest that the concerns we have previously expressed with respect to development at this site can be satisfactorily overcome. We recommend against the inclusion of any allocation here. We could only contemplate amending this advice if there were unequivocal evidence to demonstrate that this could be accommodated without harm to the adjacent Marline Valley Woods SSSI, including its associated water dependent features. As the existing conditions have not been fully assessed, we do not consider this to be the case.